It’s taken almost two years. It’s cost the lives of 1,436 Americans and wounded thousands. Finally, though, Iraqis left their houses Sunday, fearing for their lives but courageous enough to choose a government. Iraqis voted and the world celebrated.
Unfortunately, this euphoria is not yet warranted. The danger is not over and our troops will stay there, conceivably for years. This is only one more step in a process fraught with complexity, and we must be prepared to make the sacrifices to see it through.
Though we have been leery of the war effort and its increasingly varied justifications since it began, no one in their right mind can deny the justice of creating a liberal democracy out of Iraq’s anarchic state. The question of whether or not it can be done depends on so many variables that speculation could only be a waste of time. Nonetheless, with the administration unwilling to realistically consider any of the negative consequences of its activities, a critique of the current situation is necessary.
Elections do not a democracy make. Real liberal democracy is made up of institutions like minority rights and the separation of powers and an open and vibrant civil society. Sunday’s voting represents the second step in the Bush administration’s plan to create the new Iraqi government. The interim government is ending, and the assembly elected in its place must now write a new constitution that will be put before a referendum in December. Assuming that it is affirmed, there will be new elections in January 2006. Only with its own laws and its own government can Iraq be considered truly sovereign.
This, though, is also a fallacy. For Iraq will not be sovereign until over 150,000 American troops leave the country. American soldiers promised Iraqis that if they voted, the U.S. would leave. Will all sides-including most of the Iraqi leadership- accept the dawning realization that the soldiers aren’t leaving soon?
There is no reason to believe that this will occur for at least another year – whatever new Iraqi force is put in place must be equal to a task that these troops, despite their valiant efforts, can barely control. Training such a force within a year is barely possible. Perhaps the withdrawal of American troops will stop attacks, since that is the insurgency’s proposed goal, but even if that should that occur, does anyone imagine that a paramilitary force will put down its arms and join a government that it had no part in creating?
Despite the elections, the three major ethnic and religious groups in the nation must find a lasting compromise. Though the results are still being tallied, sheer population suggests that the largest group, Shia Muslims, will control the largest part of the legislature. Any of the various jealousies plaguing the nation’s divisions-ranging from fractures in the Shia coalition to the boycott of the election by certain Sunni Muslims to the Kurdish desire for autonomony-could call the legitimacy of this government into question.
Optimists predict that internal debates will lead to compromise between the three groups. Legitimacy, they say, will come when the government provides essential services and jobs, and those who question it before that happens are looking for holes in the system. Depending on the success of the recently elected assembly, this could be proved correct. Nonetheless, these are very real questions that must be addressed before the constitution is finalized.
It is not our pleasure to nit-pick the accomplishments of Sunday’s election, but balancing unbridled idealism with realism is a task that not even the administration seems up to facing. In order to proceed with spreading democracy, we must recognize the costs and failings and prepare for the challenges; celebration must wait. However, seeing Iraqis risk death to do their civic duty reminds us that anything is possible.
