Dysfunctional democracy

---

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said that US troops will not intervene in the event of a civil war in Iraq. The Iraqi security forces, seemingly, will have to deal with such an eventuality to the best of their abilities.

Rumsfeld could be joking, of course, but he doesn't seem to have much of a sense of humour. Currently the Americans are standing aside while gunmen have the run of the country and politicians bicker over a new government that never seems to get off the ground.

The secretary is, perhaps, pleased with his handiwork in Iraq. The Americans may have failed to protect the people of Iraq, failed to stem the bloodshed, but they have accomplished something. Forget about reconstruction, forget about a nation state; what the Americans have achieved is to demolish the status quo and replace it with utter chaos. So, welcome to the new Iraq, a country in which militia run loose, the body count increases, and politicians calculate their actions in terms of sectarian gains.

And in the event of civil war who will be the winners? The answer is clear -- the winners will be whoever has US backing. Having won, they will be eternally grateful to the Americans. Not such a bad prospect if you are in Rumsfeld' shoes.

Iraq's political elite do not worry about the suffering of the people. It is the political elite, from across the political spectrum, that is responsible for the current mess. Worst are the hardliners of the Unified Alliance, who have shown little regard for the democratic process, either before or after the elections. Iraq will soon have a government that is effectively a carbon copy of the last, the government that got it all wrong, from the economy to security matters. If you liked that one you'll love the next.

What merit is there to an election that fails to put a reliable government in power? The question is sad but relevant. In Iraq the government that took office in mid-2004 was more competent than the government that replaced it, following elections, in January 2005. But it is the latter that is likely to be reproduced. The Shiites of the Unified Alliance continue to insist that Ibrahim Al-Jaafari should be prime minister, despite the fact that he has systematically alienated Iraq's Kurds, Sunnis and secularists.

Saddam Hussein also ruled the country against the wishes of the people, though he did not come to power through elections. So what exactly is the point of elections?

The question is relevant to other Arab countries. In Egypt the political momentum of 2005 ended in stagnation following elections. Once the Muslim Brotherhood emerged as the only rival to the ruling National Democratic Party the vitality was gone.

What makes elections the path to stagnation rather than vitality? The answer is that democracy involves more than just throwing ballots in boxes. We can only hope that the Iraqi people take the initiative and remain in charge of their future. As for those politicians obsessed with sectarian gains, they must be reminded that their job is to help put Iraq back together not tear it apart.