WASHINGTON, 1 February 2005 — Election day in Iraq brought a rare dose of favorable news for the Bush administration’s efforts there, but left unanswered whether other such days will follow.
At home, where support for the war has fallen to fewer than half of Americans, the image of Iraqis risking their lives to cast ballots was likely to increase public sympathy. Abroad, where the US-led effort has been widely questioned, there were signs that allies would judge the election positively, possibly providing international legitimacy that has been a top goal for the United States.
But US officials stopped short Sunday of calling the vote a turning point, perhaps remembering how the jubilation that followed the capture of Saddam Hussein in December 2003 melted in a few months as the insurgency raged on. While exulting in the election turnout Sunday, President Bush also said, “There’s more distance to travel on the road to democracy.’’
Despite the exhilaration, the election may do little to win international support, assure development of a friendly government in Baghdad and prevent the spread of civil strife.
World leaders usually look to the United Nations to help them make sense of elections in troubled parts of the world. The UN election team for Iraq is already making clear that it considers the balloting fair — even though Iraq was too dangerous to permit the presence of international observers.
“They’re voting for the day when they’re going to take their destiny in hand,’’ UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said.
Such judgments could serve to soften public opposition in Europe and the Middle East to the US presence in Iraq. US officials have made clear that they are eager to change European attitudes and are making it a top priority of the new term.
But even with international blessings, the voter turnout is unlikely to convince balky European and Arab powers to do much more on the ground to support the US effort, diplomats said. Many predicted that those who opposed the war would not soften their stance until Iraq has moved considerably further toward independence.
“Most people around the world really hoped, I suppose, for some good results in Iraq. We will receive very little credit for it initially,’’ predicted Sen. Richard G. Lugar, R-Ind., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on CBS’s “Face the Nation.’’
Any boost to American diplomacy from the election stands to be “marginal,’’ said Patrick Clawson, deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Even with worldwide praise, the balloting is likely to come under fire from commentators in the Arab media, many of whom don’t believe a fair election can be held during an occupation, and from Iraqi political groups disappointed in the outcome, he said.
“We can be certain that many people will deny its legitimacy,’’ Clawson said.
Large vote totals for a few political slates also could inspire suspicions about the election, even though the results will largely be affected by a Sunni Muslim boycott of the vote.
If a sizable share of seats in the 275-member transitional national assembly goes to the interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi or the dominant Shiite coalition, the United Iraqi Alliance, this “could be interpreted by some people as evidence of vote-rigging and fraud,’’ said Larry Diamond, a former senior adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq and a Stanford University expert on democracy development.
The election may lead to more calls for the United States to pull out of the country, with Iraq seen as moving toward self-government. On the eve of the balloting, French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin reiterated that it was France’s goal to have all foreign troops removed from Iraq, and two former British foreign ministers, Douglas Hurd and Robin Cook, called for planned withdrawals of US and British forces.
Last week, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., said US troops should begin an immediate, phased withdrawal, a call that was echoed by several other Democrats in Congress.
While Sunday’s results suggested that most Iraqis want a direct say in their new government, their votes were not necessarily an endorsement of US goals, or of the kind of government the White House would like to see.
Indeed, the new leadership, which is likely to have a strong tie to Islam, “is going to give discomfort to some Americans,’’ Lugar said.
Although Bush said that the election had sounded “the voice of freedom in the Middle East,’’ it signals only the beginning of arguments among Iraqis about how much American-style freedom will be permitted in the new Iraq. In the upcoming deliberations over a new constitution, Iraqis will debate the official role of Islam, which some parties want to give a prominent place in governing society; and about the rights of the minority Kurds and Sunnis in a country dominated for the first time by Iraqi Shiites.
Bush has portrayed the election as similar to colonial America’s first steps toward democracy. But some observers fear the proper analogy is the US presidential election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, which convinced an aggrieved Southern minority that it could only lose by remaining part of the nation, and triggered the Civil War.
In trying to integrate Sunnis, who apparently did not vote in great numbers, Iraq faces “a very serious political problem,’’ Diamond said. “If the country slides toward civil war, I don’t see how the United States benefits.’’
The transitional period of the next several months “is going to be difficult the entire way,’’ Clawson said. Bush may have been smart last week to play down expectations for the election, he said, adding: “This is a small step forward, not a great leap.’’
