Iraqis Vote on Another Transitional Government

The American media’s coverage of the Iraqi elections yesterday was, at best, gushing. With many lumps in throats, reporters who should know better rubber-stamped the Bush administration’s official line that it was a great day for democracy and freedom. The elections were less than they could have been, more than many feared, but in the end, they changed almost nothing at the national level. There is still an occupation going on, there is still a civil war underway, and new faces in the top offices won’t change that. The one bright spot, which not even the White House has noted, are the elections to provincial legislatures in at least 14 of the country’s 18 provinces.

Democracy is a magic word, along with freedom and liberty, prosperity and security, motherhood and whatever the local equivalent of apple pie may be. The fact that the people of Iraq voted in an election doesn’t mean very much – Herr Hitler was freely elected. Nor does the substantial overall turn out of 60+% (at current estimates) make it a legitimate election – Comrade Stalin’s elections had extremely high voter turnout. This is not to belittle the people who went out and voted while their lives were under threat if they cast a ballot. But with 111 parties, it is doubtful that very many voters could describe the different platforms – it was hard enough to find the polling stations, the locations of which had been kept secret until the night before the vote.

The one change that the election has created affects US policy rather than life in Iraq. The US will now see some pressure domestically to bring the troops home, but there is now an elected Iraqi government that may ask for GI Joe to stay. It is unimaginable that, after the treasure and blood spent there, that the Bush administration would walk out if asked to stay. And if told to leave, it is doubtful that the Americans could stay. US policy now will be heavily constrained by what Baghdad says it wants. The question is what will the executive chosen by the national assembly decide. More than likely, they will ask American kids to keep right on dying for them -- there are few Iraqis in a position to die for the Baghdad regime right now.

Much has been made in the pro-Bush camp about the effect of a democratic election in Iraq – as if democracy were an end rather than a means. Many have pointed out the irony that the first free elections held in Syria were for Iraqis in exile. One might also point out that the administration is much more concerned about the right of Arabs and Kurds in the US to vote for Iraqi politicians than they are about the right of black votes in America to vote against Republicans in places like Florida and Ohio. The effect this election will have on the political systems of its neighbors depends largely on how the government of Iraq operates – if it is corrupt, if it fails to deliver, if it results in minority oppression, few will want to emulate it.

And that is where the provincial governments come in. While the central government in Baghdad has the big issues to address, the local politicos need to get the lights to stay on 24 hours a day, open the schools, help farmers get the crops in the ground and fix the roads. All of the mundane local politics now becomes vital – there is no specific Ba’athist, Democratic, Nazi or Communist way to pick up the trash or regulate traffic. Provinces where the sewers work and the phones connect calls successfully will see the insurrection tail off. Those where chaos continues will see more and more resistance. The provinces now have elected legislatures, and a responsive local government is truly the best way forward. That is the real story of this election; the rest is of minor importance.

© Copyright 2005 by The Kensington Review, J. Myhre, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent.

Home