With the Iraqi election campaign in full swing one may wonder why the international media are paying such little attention to an exercise the outcome of which is likely to have a major impact on political developments throughout the region.
The Dec. 15 election is not the first democratic exercise of its kind in Iraq after liberation. Since 2003 the Iraqis have held municipal elections in all but four of their 18 provinces. A nationwide general election, the first of its kind in the nation’s history, was held last January. And in October almost 10 million Iraqis turned up to vote in a constitutional referendum. The coming election, however, is different for a number of reasons.
To begin with it is held within the framework of the new Constitution. Unlike last January when the Iraqis elected an interim government with a limited mandate, this time they will be choosing a parliament and a government with a full constitutional mandate for a four-year period.
The second reason why this election is more important is that it offers the Iraqis a choice of rival political and economic models. This was not the case in last January’s election which focused on constitutional issues that, to some Iraqis, appeared rather abstract and thus removed from their daily concerns.
With the federal system already envisaged by the Constitution the Iraqi electorate would have to focus on the different economic and social policies on offer. Should Iraq remain an oil-based rentier state in which the chief task of the government is to provide a minimum of welfare? Or should it aim at building a proper capitalist system based on free enterprise and competition with the role of the state reduced to a bare minimum?
Yet another reason for the special importance of the coming elections is that it will be fought not by big coalition blocs designed to blur ideological differences, but by parties and alliances fighting under clear ideological banners. The January election was dominated by Shiite and Kurdish bloc votes that limited the options for forming the new government. This time there are no such bloc votes and numerous combinations for coalition could become possible. The exercise will provide an accurate photography of the state of opinion in Iraq today.
Also important is fact that Arab Sunnis are determined to take part in the election. In the previous electoral exercises in Iraq more than half of all Arab Sunnis chose to stay home either because they feared for their lives or believed that the dominant Shiite-Kurdish alliance was offering them a rough deal. This time, however, a large Arab Sunni turnout is expected and, if it materializes, could alter the political landscape in Baghdad.
The election merits special attention for yet another reason. It is specifically designed to produce a government whose first task would be to negotiate the terms under which the US-led coalition forces would remain in Iraq.
Whatever deal is worked out would end the persistent confusion that is exploited by Saddam nostalgics for attacking both the coalition and the new Iraqi leadership. In legal and technical terms the occupation of Iraq by the US-led Coalition ended in June 2004 with the transfer of sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government. But Saddam nostalgics both in the region and in the West have continued to speak about “occupation” and make a song-and-dance about US imperialism wearing the mask of liberator. The government that will be formed in Baghdad early next year would be able to counter those claims by negotiating a clear basis for the continued presence of the coalition forces — a presence that is certain to be needed at least until 2007.
There is no doubt that as voting day approaches, terrorists and insurgents will step up their murderous attacks just as they have since liberation. These attacks, however, are clear signs that the insurgents and terrorists lack a genuine popular base in Iraq. Had they had such a base they would have had no need of blowing up Iraqi shoppers in a market or Iraqi children in a primary school. Rather they would have mobilized their base for a massive turnout on Dec. 15 to vote pro-insurgent candidates in. Terrorism is always practiced by those who know that they cannot win power through the ballot box.
What is remarkable is that the continued terrorist campaign has not succeeded in encouraging the fear-and-security reflex among the Iraqis, something which would have most favored traditional right-wing parties. I may be proved wrong but my guess is that Iraq’s secularist parties of the center, both right and left, are likely to do far better than they did in last January’s general election.
Today, Iraq is the only country in the region where all shades of opinion can freely compete for power through elections. From Trotskyites on the far Left to the pan-Arabists on the far Right, and passing by Islamist, monarchist, liberal, socialist and democratic parties, the entire spectrum of opinion and ideology is on offer in Iraq. It is also the only country where ideas and policies that could land their exponents in jail or in front of firing squads elsewhere, are freely discussed in an open market-place of opinions and ideologies.
All one needs to do is to ask what would happen to anyone who advocated a constitutional monarchy in the Islamic Republic of Iran; and where would a Social Democrat end up in Syria, not to mention the fate of an Islamist in Tunisia and a Liberal in Libya.
The Iraqis are beginning to enjoy what few Muslim nations have ever enjoyed: An opportunity to debate all issues in full freedom and without fear. Iraq is going through a learning process symbolized by party conferences, debates between rival candidates, radio and television talk-shows, election rallies and endless political talk in private homes, teahouses, offices and farms. By all accounts this ought to be an interesting news story.
And, yet, it isn’t — especially in the West.
This story is not properly covered in the region because the despots still in power in most places do not wish to whet the appetite of their own subjects for freedom and pluralism.
The story isn’t covered in the West for two reasons.
The first is that many ethnocentrists, masquerading as multiculturalists, believe that Arabs are genetically incapable of building open societies. They don’t wish to admit it, but deep down they believe that the “normal” system for Arabs is more like the one that Saddam Hussein built and not the one that the new Iraqi leaders are trying to build. It is useless to tell people that nobody is imposing democracy on Iraq and that what is happening is the removal of impediments to democratization. These often well-meaning individuals firmly believe that the Arabs must be left to stew in their own juices.
The second reason why the Iraqi election story is not covered is that many influential figures and groups in the West are so imbued with hatred of George W. Bush and Tony Blair, that they would rather see Iraq sink in a sea of blood than build anything resembling a normal society. These people want Iraq to fail because they want Bush and Blair, and in a broader sense, the “Anglo-Saxon” bloc to fail.
As a result Western media viewers and readers miss a very good story — and a big piece of good news from a region where such blessings are rare.
