PARIS, 15 January 2004 — Is the Bush administration having second thoughts about its latest plan for a transfer of power to an interim Iraqi government by the end of June?
The question is raised as a result of recent remarks made by officials in Washington and Baghdad about possible delays in implementing the plan. The reason cited is a statement last Sunday by Grand Ayatollah Ali Muhammad Sistani, the most prominent religious leader of Iraqi Shiites.
In response to a question put him by a group of unnamed “believers” the ayatollah replied: “The ideal mechanism is an election, which many experts believe is possible to hold within the next months with an acceptable level of transparency and credibility.” The coalition plan, however, envisages a process of selecting the interim government through a number of caucuses and informal consultations with ethnic, tribal, religious and political groups. The coalition authorities, and almost all Iraqi political parties, believe that the country is not yet ready for free and fair elections and that an interim government that represents all strands of opinion is the best option.
Thus, Sistani’s call for elections is seen by some officials in Washington and Baghdad as a definitive rejection of the current plan.
This, I believe, is a dangerous misreading not only of Sistani’s intentions but also of the role that the Shiite clergy should play in a future democratic Iraq.
To begin with, Sistani’s statement is a “fatwa”, which means an “opinion”, and not a decree or an edict, as some US officials, including L Paul Bremer, the coalition’s chief civilian administrator, seem to believe.
In Islam no religious expert (mujtahid) has the authority to issue either a decree or an edict. There are no popes and cardinals in Islam, and the opinion of one religious expert could be challenged or even contradicted by another’s. That fundamental principle of Islam, however, has been challenged by a small group of theologians, notably the late Ayatollah Khomeini. They claim that since most Muslims, being poor and illiterate, lack the knowledge and moral strength to needed for to take correct decisions. It was on the basis of that analysis that Khomeini set up his Islamic Republic in Iran in 1979 and wrote a constitution under which a mulla, designated as “The Supreme Guide”, has absolute power beyond the dream of any despotic ruler.
For almost 50 years Sistani has been in the camp of those who have defended mainstream Islam against Khomeinist and other deviations. Thus it would be a supreme irony if this veteran anti-Khomeinist cleric is transformed into an Iraqi version of Khomeini by Bremer and Co.
To be sure, the occupation authorities must respect Sistani, not only because it is good politics but also, and perhaps especially, because he deserves the highest degree of respect. Sistani should also be consulted, albeit not directly by occupation officials, on all issues just as other prominent Iraqi citizens are. But it would be wrong to treat Sistani as a political leader of Iraqi Shiites. When it comes to taking and applying political decisions, the coalition must deal with Iraqi politicians. Dragging Sistani into politics is bad for Iraq, bad for him and bad for the coalition.
So, let us see how best one can deal with Sistani’s latest “opinion”?
Sistani says holding elections is “the ideal” and not the only mechanism for forming an interim government. This means that if one can show that his ideal mechanism is not realistic at present he would be prepared to change his opinion. This could be done with the help of the Governing Council, whose current Chairman Adnan Pachachi is in contact with Sistani, and the United Nations whose experts share the view that Iraq is not ready for elections. But even if, at the end of the day, Sistani remains unconvinced, that should not bring the whole process to a halt. Need one ask: How many divisions does Sistani have? I doubt if Iraqi Shiites would be foolish enough to repeat their mistake of 1920 and choose to stay out of the nation’s political life. Holding elections is not a religious duty but a matter of political expediency. The Qur’an calls for consultation “shawir”, and not elections in the Western democratic sense, as a key for legitimizing any government.
This writer happens to agree with Sistani that the ideal way to form an interim Iraqi government is through free and fair elections. I also share Sistani’s belief that such elections, though extremely difficult to organize, are not impossible to hold.
Having said that, the responsibility for Iraq lies with the coalition and the Governing Council, not with any theologian or media commentator. Theologians and media commentators, and others who might contribute to the debate, must be heard. But the ultimate decision, legally and morally, rests with the coalition. If a premature attempt at holding elections leads to disaster it won’t be Sistani or any media commentator who will pay the political, and other, costs of failure but the coalition.
What is urgently needed is to hand the government of Iraq to the Iraqis as quickly as possible. I doubt that Sistani would want to be held responsible for postponing the transfer of power to the Iraqis and prolonging the occupation. The coalition rejects the election option not because it is technically difficult but because the results cannot be pre-scripted. I think Sistani is right and the coalition is wrong. But this is not the end of the world. Iraq has been liberated and will have plenty of free elections in future. Emerging from half a century of despotism, terror and war, the people of Iraq cannot afford a prolonged period of uncertainty. They need a clear political road map that, though it may not be ideal, would have the merit of guiding them through a difficult period of transition. A coalition that ignored veto threats at the UN Security Council last year should not now be paralyzed by imagined threats of a clerical veto.
