Editorial: Election may trigger more chaos in Iraq

Opinion

The White House has been quietly lowering expectations for the January 30 elections in Iraq. The poll, rather than delivering democracy to grateful Iraqis - and being the catalyst for the democratisation of the Arab world - is now being cast as the first of a number of steps along that path. "It's the beginning of a process, the process where Iraqis will write a constitution and at the end of the year will actually vote for a permanent government," says Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. Regrettably, however, even that has become an unrealistic expectation. A national assembly that is not representative of the people of Iraq will never be able to claim legitimacy, and, therefore, will not be in a position to draft a legitimate constitution.

It is now clear that most of the 20 per cent Sunni Muslim minority will obey leading Sunni clerics and politicians and boycott the vote. The Americans' refusal to postpone the poll virtually guaranteed that. For others in the community, which has dominated Iraq for the past century, voting was never an issue; they are in revolt. The escalating violence being orchestrated by these Sunni militants will further discredit the election result by persuading many Iraqis to stay away from polling stations.

The Bush Administration somehow sees the rising violence as justification for proceeding with the vote. Get it over now before the going gets too tough seems to be its line of thinking. It is a silly notion, given that the chance for fair elections evaporated some time ago. Postponement became the sensible option once that stage was reached. As it is, the vote will present the Arab world with a miserable representation of democracy; so abject that former Secretary of State Colin Powell talked of a successful election being one where most of the population had "gotten a chance to vote". A turnout of more than half of eligible voters will, it seems, make the poll highly acceptable in American eyes.

The election process is in disarray largely because the United States has failed to bring together the different communities in Iraq. Long-standing prejudices have been re-invigorated, rather than a stage being provided for reconciliation and compromise. The 275-member transitional assembly will confirm power in the hands of the Shi'ites, who make up 60 per cent of the population. A century of being oppressed and the prospect offered by democracy have persuaded them to work with the Americans; they now comprise most of the police and Army. This has made them, increasingly, a target of Sunni attacks in a struggle that has become more sectarian. So far, the Shi'ites have not reacted, but dominance of the transitional assembly could embolden them to exact revenge.

That is why the election could be the trigger not for a free, democratic Iraq but for greater turmoil and instability. This, certainly, was the prospect raised late last year by Brent Scowcroft - a widely respected national security adviser to President George Bush snr - about the time that President George W. Bush was dispensing with his services. Mr Scowcroft said the poll was a recipe for "incipient civil war". Some might argue that state has already materialised in the run-up to January 30.

Certainly, that fear has prompted much metaphorical flailing. The United Nations Secretary-General wants the Iraqi authorities to do more to encourage Sunnis to vote. In reality, there is little they can do. Recognition of this has prompted the United Iraq Alliance, the Shi'ite party that has the influential blessing of Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, to say it will invite Sunnis into senior posts in the new government. Given the present level of animosity, that, also, is an unlikely prospect.

The White House has acknowledged the elections will be "less than perfect". In the UN's eyes, the circumstances are "far from ideal". Clearly, the elections owe far more to stubbornness than sense. In all ways, they will be a poor excuse for democracy.