WHAT TO EXPECT AFTER JAN 30th IN IRAQ

In spite of the daily violence, the US and Iraqi interim government maintain that elections should and will be held as promised, this January 30th.

In theory, it is indeed a very good thing to stick to your promises. But it seems many feel these elections should not be held as scheduled. I think they should, and here's why.

The US came to Iraq with a -forgive my bluntness- rather pathetic set of promises, which until now have mostly failed to materialize. Freedom, security, sovereignty, peace and of course, progress and prosperity were amongst them. Well, if one examines each of these notions’ status in Iraq today, the record is rather dismal.

First, the bleak perspective.

Peace is inexistent as the capital itself, the “green zone” even, is regularly rocked by suicide, roadside and truck bombs, mortar attacks, etc. Needless to say, I worry about the true situation in the rest of the country. How easy it must be for well-trained militias to wind up peasants into supporting a jihad on coalition forces.

Freedom is also lacking, as people are regularly threatened firstly by the general insecurity. But there is also intimidation of those passive or supportive of the coalitions, and of minorities such as the Kurds or the Christian Assyrians in the north.

Prosperity is not guaranteed either, since the oil industry is equally in constant danger of attacks and thus unstable. All progress is halted. The economy is most likely gridlocked. Without security there can indeed not be much reconstruction, re-education and so on.

Now, I feel that the sovereignty of Iraq is not really threatened. I recognize the American presence as temporary, and though no occupation is ever ‘clean’ and without strings attached, I don’t think the democratic exercise that was planned was necessarily a joke.

Does this mean they shouldn’t happen? I don’t think so. Even though the opposition, or the militias, are saying the elections should be delayed or, if held as scheduled, boycotted, have no illusions. There will be great difficulties, and irregularities, surely. But if the elections are delayed, this will only be used by the opposition as further proof of the illegitimacy of the whole thing. And for as long as there is any trouble in Iraq –and there will be some for years to come, short of a dictator- this irony will surface time and again.

Finally, 2 very important aspects to this question remain: can the elections at least even practically be held, i.e. is there enough security forces? And also, if the violence is mostly in the Sunni region [westwards of the country] does that make the election result void?

Does this mean elections can’t happen? Maybe. But I have a gut feeling the elections will roughly work out. There will be roughly enough security. What might happen is at the beginning of the elections, high profile stations will be assaulted brutally to reduce turnout at other stations.

As for the low Sunni turnout claim is self-imposed. If there is no security in their towns and regions, it’s because individuals in their society have decided to support the rebels, and this unavoidably means they decline to vote anyway.

So the result will be a government that won’t last too long, plagued by regular claims of not representing the Sunnis enough. Furthermore this government will depend on US forces for security, and will thus be forced to side against those demanding an immediate pullout.

That’s all there is to say about the short-term. I will write about the long-term questions that Iraq faces after the elections, such as the viability of true democracy in the Arab world, and the nature of the claim that Iraq can only be ruled by force. This will most likely take us back to that fateful day, in 1953.