A close election indicates a strengthening democratic process
Iraq’s parliamentary elections in March prompted a 62 percent voter turnout, with 12 million Iraqis voting for the next leaders of their fledgling democracy. For a country that has recently been dominated by sectarian conflict, the sight of millions of Iraqis going to the polls in spite of insurgent efforts is a promising sign. Iraq’s chance for unification under a stable government seems more feasible than ever because of its citizens’ calls for change and the U.S. timetable for withdrawal.
While the candidates of the five major coalitions represented significant political, religious, and ethnic differences, such a vast array of electoral choice points to a democratizing trend, an improvement over the one-party rule of Saddam Hussein’s Baath party. The fact that no candidate or party received a majority indicates that Iraq is on the path to becoming a vibrant democracy, or at least it will be if the parties are able to come together this summer to form a government. And if that happens, the Iraqi democracy’s success story could ultimately threaten the legitimacy of authoritarian regimes in the region.
A Competitive Race
Iraqis have widely embraced democracy over the last five years, showing their preference for unified nationalism over the sectarianism that the 2005 elections embodied. The 2010 parliamentary elections were the most contested in Iraqi history, as hundreds of parties fielded more than 6,000 candidates to compete for 325 seats. While there were difficulties in the process, including the barring of some Sunni candidates (a decision that was ultimately reversed), Western observers and Iraqi officials agree that the election results were legitimate and indicative of the country’s progress.
In an interview with the HPR, Ahmed Ali, an analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said that “the Independent High Electoral Commission, which executed the elections, demonstrated an increased and developed organizational capacity.” Compared to the 2005 elections, in which a closed-list party system was used, the 2010 elections were governed by “an open-list system, which gave the voters an opportunity to elect their representatives,” Ali said.
In addition, prominent candidates, such as former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi and current Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, moved their campaigns away from sectarian undertones and towards secular positions on national security, resource allocation, and infrastructure. An open discussion about the need for unity and electoral participation indicates that Iraqis believe the democratic process is worth their effort and sacrifice.
A Long Road Ahead
With a narrow plurality voting for Allawi and his Shiite Iraqiya coalition, the responsibility falls on him to forge a coalition government. Iraqiya received 91 seats and al-Maliki’s State of Law coalition came in a close second, gaining 89 seats. The Iraqi National Alliance, dominated by Shiite parties and led by the anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, got 70 seats, and the Kurdistan alliance took 43. No party won the 163 seats needed to independently create a government.
Iraq’s leaders must now “bring the country back together and form a government that is capable of governing and striking compromises,” Kenneth Pollack, a foreign policy fellow at the Brookings Institution, told the HPR. But some fear that recent gains could be squandered by a constitutional framework that requires long deadlines and a lot of bureaucratic red tape before governments can be formed. It is a complicated process in which authority is transferred slowly, and there are multiple opportunities for the opposition to contest decisions.
Pollack explained, “The longer political parties bicker and negotiate, the more opportunities for militias, thugs, and purveyors of violence—all of which have been sidelined by the American security effort—to break the political wrangling on their own.” Roger Owen, a Harvard history professor, said that “the danger will come if certain groups of people feel they are excluded from the government formation.” Of particular concern are the Kurds, the most autonomous group within the Iraqi population. In the absence of compromises with the Kurds, violence could erupt again and derail the formation of a government.
American Withdrawal
Since sectarian conflict continues to divide political parties and citizens alike, the government formation process will last well into the summer of 2010, which challenges the Obama administration’s plan to withdraw the majority of combat troops by August 2010. Whether Iraq is capable of democratic sovereignty once American military troops are partially withdrawn is yet to be determined, but Ali said that the Iraqis “have demonstrated they want to be in the lead politically and militarily.”
Pollack acknowledged that “most Iraqis would like to see Americans out as quickly as possible, but are also terrified because they recognize all the fragilities and potential explosiveness of the political situation.” Their fear is due in part to the fact that the United States provides much more than just military assistance. Myriam Benraad, an analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the HPR that “people do not really realize what happens behind-the-scenes, such as the Americans supporting economic reform, rebuilding institutions, training magistrates and judges, and establishing the rule of law.” Still, the bulk of American troops are scheduled to leave in August. Whether the Iraqis form a government or not, U.S. troops will only be able to play a minor role in helping them recover from any deadlock or setback.
Keeping Up with the Iraqis
Another concern (or perhaps hope) is that Iraq’s neighbors, like Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, may be destabilized by a flourishing Iraqi democracy. Benraad suggested that “a more strongly democratic Iraq poses a threat to these authoritarian regimes because the progress of democracy weakens their legitimacy and interests.” For Iran in particular, Pollack noted that “as Iraq moves towards stability, democracy, and more prosperity, Iran will seem to be backwards as a police state, causing disgruntlement among Iranians.” Though it will take many years for Iraq to solidify its democratic political system, its progress will not go unnoticed by the region’s dictators.
Democratizing trends also promote economic reconstruction and efficient resource allocation. Owen said that Iraq’s oil production will benefit greatly from increased political stability. According to Pollack, “even most conservative estimates say Iraq can double their oil output in less than five years, going from two million barrels to four million barrels per day.” This growth will have a great impact on the global oil market and will only strengthen Iraq’s economy and give the nascent democracy some valuable revenue.
There is much at stake politically and economically in the Iraqi government’s formation process. It will be a messy, drawn-out process of dialogue, compromise, and, most likely and unfortunately, some continued violence. While the timeframe is painfully protracted, its very existence is a testament to the progress that Iraq has made and a promising indicator that Iraqis are moving towards a more stable and permanent democratic government. And it is no longer completely in vain to hope that Iraq might become a model and catalyst for change in the Middle East.
Victoria Hargis ’11 is a Staff Writer
Photo Credit: flickr (DVIDSHUB)