Higher interests

As the elections scheduled for 30 January draw closer it is fear, not optimism, that has come to determine how Iraqis think and behave, writes Aziz Jabour*

---

As everyone knows, elections are the best way for people to choose their leaders. So why, in Iraq, is optimism virtually non-existent and despair pervasive?

It is no secret that Iraqi elections are far from being an exclusively domestic issue. Regional and international powers are intervening in an attempt to tie events in Iraq with their own interests. Those interests can be defined as follows.

In its capacity as leader of the occupation forces in Iraq, the United States wants to use the elections to reward those who supported the US and helped it occupy the country. In addition, it wants to use the elections to garner support locally, regionally and internationally. It will take the opportunity to restore an image battered by the aggressive behaviour of the occupation forces and the confused policies of the Bush administration, policies that have brought Iraqis nothing but death, destruction, social collapse, widespread administrative corruption and an inability to make good on the promises made to Iraq and the world. Washington had promised a pluralist, democratic political regime that protected the rights and wealth of ordinary citizens. Instead those rights have been flagrantly breached. What wealth there was has been plundered. Destruction has been visited on important symbols of Iraq's culture. The historic city of Babel was turned, by the Americans and Poles, into a military depot.

The pro-American government that these elections will produce will give Washington a chance to disentangle itself from the mess it is in in Iraq, while at the same time allowing for a continuation of the muddled policies that have led to a firm conviction amongst all Iraqis -- even those close to the Americans -- that the US doesn't want to make friends of the them but slaves.

The elections will also allow European countries, and France and Germany in particular, to bring their positions closer to the US and in so doing lay claim to piece of the pie, otherwise known as the reconstruction of Iraq. The Europeans will attempt to show Iraqis that their opposition to the war remains unchanged though they are willing to help set up a democratic Iraqi regime that isn't completely dependent on the American administration.

The positions held by countries in the region reflect their relations with Washington rather than being a true expression of support for building a new Iraqi political system. Iran, for instance, supports elections for sectarian reasons. It thinks elections will lead to Shia majority in the National Council and from there to the creation of constitution that will protect Iranian interests in Iraq and help Tehran resist growing pressure from Washington.

Syria, on the other hand, supports forces opposed to holding the elections. Damascus often appears to believe that following the failure of Nasserism it was Syria that became the leader of Arab nationalism. This perception, after all, was at the root of its dispute with the regime of Saddam Hussein. By opposing elections held under American occupation Damascus is courting the support of the Arab street in an attempt to cement its position as leader of the Arab umma.

Other Arab countries that publicly support the elections are simply too scared of displeasing the Americans. The majority are profoundly undemocratic and feel threatened by the possibility of the peaceful rotation of high office at home. They would prefer the elections not to take place at all. If they must, most Arab capitals are hoping it will be a long drawn out and painful process.

Some political factions in Iraq have managed to shrug off outside pressure, or are at least working to do so, and support elections in the hope of implanting the values of participation. These factions are made up of secular and moderate religious movements and count among their members a number of technocrats and individuals with an unblemished history of patriotism. Unfortunately, it seems that even these factions have taken to entering in unwise partnerships for the sake of garnering popular support. This is largely a result of their being unable to campaign and explain their positions to the voters.

Political groups supporting the elections do not have the same opportunities as the large religious movements that can convene conferences and seminars under the protection of their militias. Those without militias have been unable to meet the public for fear of attacks.

There is also a great deal of inequality in the distribution of resources. While some parties possess funds that have enabled them to exploit foreign and Arab media outlets to promote their election campaigns, others are nowhere near as lucky. It has reached the point where the election sometimes appears to be between three lists -- one government, one Shia and one Kurdish. This is nothing more than the legitimisation of ethnic and sectarian divisions.

Yet one cannot seek to delay the elections by killing people or depriving them of the right to vote. Such courses of action are barbaric. We need to ensure the removal of the occupier, and it must be done by uniting a people and allowing them to speak in one voice through a constitution created by their own will.

Iraq is not the only nation on earth made up of many religions and ethnicities. Anyone who supports this plurality must also believe in mechanisms that ensure the will of the majority and minority are equally respected. Only when we have managed this will we be able to free ourselves of foreign influences, foremost among them the occupation, and live freely in a country where the individuals' basic rights are guaranteed by divine law and international conventions.

* The writer is a Baghdad-based human rights activist.