Iraqi elections: what is next

The message from Sunday's vote is that Iraqis want to reclaim their country's full sovereignty, writes Abbas Kadhim

---

Iraq elections 2005

Iraqis who went to polling centres sent two messages, neither seems to have reached its target. The first message was sent to those regarded as terrorists and who have turned innocent Iraqis into their random targets. However, those deemed terrorists are staying the course in spite of that protestation message.

The second message was directed to the United States-led Occupation authorities. The high turn-out on Sunday was a loud statement that Iraqis want their country back. Yet, US President George W Bush and his supporters could not wait to claim victory and many of them began talking again about the chances to continue the quest of "freedom" in all four directions. Another message missing its mark!

The victorious tone of President Bush and his administration who stormed TV and Radio stations all weekend is especially awkward given that no results from the elections have been announced and no one knows how the whole thing will end up ó as if they can foretell the future. It is also disingenuous that they claim any credit as if having elections in Iraq was their idea in the first place. It is hard to forget their original plan for Iraq: an American military ruler with a group of handpicked Iraqi advisors. Their idea of writing the Iraqi constitution was not any better. The plan was to have an American law professor oversee the process of drafting the constitution.

It was the idea of the Iraqis themselves to have an election and the unwavering demands of Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani that mandated the writing of the constitution by an elected group of Iraqis. The Bush administration fought that demand and obtained an opinion from the UN to declare Iraq not ready for elections. Only when they were cornered did they agree to hold the elections, in much worse conditions than the time they rejected them. Their current support is only taking free and undeserved credit for what Iraqis gave their blood to achieve.

It is very hard to pass any judgment on the elections in Iraq. The only known variable in the process is the courage of the Iraqi people and their desire to rise above the hardships of occupation and the austere conditions of their daily life. The festive mood in Washington and London, one hour after the polls were closed, stems from the goals they have from the elections. For them, the elections were an end in and of themselves, but not a means to an end. After almost two years of gasping for anything that seems to work, Washington and London could not wait to begin the festivity on the basis of pure symbolism. Had they been concerned the least about substance, they would be more prudent to wait at least until the election process officially ends by announcing the results.

The Bush administration and its supporters, mostly right wing imperialists, want to put this one day of success, that was not theirs, against all the failure, corruption, death, destruction and even torture of the past two years. Worse, they claim that they are the winners. But history does not work like business accounting where profits and assets are placed on one side of a balance sheet and liabilities on the other and the last figure is all that matters. Credible history evaluates every event separately to give credit, or censure, where it is due. This way nothing is swept under the rug.

The success of this election can be measured by the proceedings of the coming months and not by what took place on 30 January. This can be accomplished by several expectations Iraqis have in mind. Firstly, there must be a consensus concerning the results of the elections. This includes addressing the procedural problems during the elections. Parties whose names were mysteriously dropped from the ballots and areas that received less than half of the required ballots ó as it happened in Mosul and Basra ó must be reconciled with and politically compensated. Then there is the hard process of reaching out to those who failed to participate in the elections or boycotted them. The losers must not be vindictive and the winners must not be arrogant. All are needed to work together to meet the upcoming challenges. This election was about 275 political positions ñ at the national level. There are many other important positions that can be gracefully given to those who might be under-represented, if a process of healing and reconciliation is to be expected. If this is not achieved, the political process will not go very far.

Secondly, the new era must begin with an immediate improvement in the security and reconstruction. Thirdly, the new government must reward the impressive Iraqi turn out in the elections by giving them the gift of true freedom. A reasonably quick process of re-gaining Iraqi sovereignty must begin immediately. The presence of this massive army of foreign soldiers cannot be justified in the presence of a popularly elected government. This can be done by building a credible national army and polices forces. They must be given all the tools and authority they need to do their job efficiently. The current treatment of Iraqi police, including the failure to pay them for months ñ like the case of the Najaf police ñ is scandalous. Failure to meet this challenge will keep the new government in no better shape than its appointed predecessor.

Just as unelected governments can gain legitimacy through decent governance, elected governments can lose their legitimacy through corruption or when they abdicate their sovereignty.

The fourth expectation concerns basic services. Iraqis have been living in sub-human conditions for too long. It is disgraceful that the citizens of a country like Iraq cannot find heating oil, gasoline, and electricity. There is also the poverty and destitution of large segments in society that need to be addressed immediately.

Finally, there is the main political expectation from this government, the writing of a decent constitution. It is probably the hardest task before the coming government, given the injurious political process thus far. The Iraqi permanent constitution must be acceptable to all Iraqis in order to avoid the veto of any minority of three provinces. It also must emerge from the conditions of the Iraqi political, social and historical reality. The Aristotelian method correctly mandates that the writers of a constitution must study the family, the village and the city before writing a constitution. They are certain to fail is they write a constitution and search for a city to impose it on. Iraq is not Belgium, the U.S. or Sweden and Kufa is not Malmo. Therefore, the constitutions of these countries that serve their citizens very well may not necessarily work for Iraqis.

The courageous people of Iraq did their part in the Jan. 30 elections. They participated en masse in the political process, in spite of serious death threats and terrorist acts.Many of them gave their lives in the process. Now the burden in on the new government and the Occupation to make good on their promises.