Back to Welcome page
Back to News Index
It is ironic that the very group that was expected to push Iraq toward fundamentalism is leading the call for democracy.
The Daily Star (Lebanon)
Opinion 29/01/04
The recent demonstrations by Iraqi Shiites demanding that elections be held in the coming months, before power is handed over to an Iraqi authority by June 30, are to be applauded, not feared at least for the moment. However, there is a lingering cloud on the horizon that if Washington fails to understand the gravity of the current situation, the US civilian administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, could find himself in the soup, with the peaceful demonstrations precursors of far more serious troubles before year’s end.
So far the United States has attempted to mollify opposition to the planned handover of power, by allowing the United Nations to investigate the viability of elections. On Tuesday, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan announced a team would be sent to Iraq to look into the matter.
The senior Shiite cleric Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani called a halt to demonstrations, promising that Shiites would wait until the UN gave its verdict before "we will say our word," raising the stakes riding on the UN's decision and the US reaction to it. It remains unclear, however, whether Washington will ultimately permit the UN to have a say in how Iraq is governed.
What the Shiites are asking for is quite simple: that they not be denied their rightful role in post-war Iraq. However this is not merely a Shiite problem; the Shiites are, by default, speaking for other groups Sunnis and Kurds that also wish to play a part in governing their own country. If all factions are allowed to take part in direct elections this year, the whole landscape of problems in Iraq will change. Security will become an Iraqi responsibility; Iraqis will take decisions; and, more importantly, Iraqis will regain the authority over and power in their own country.
A leaflet handed out by demonstrators in Baghdad explained:
"Because of the conditions under which Iraq lives, and the suffering that the Iraqi people face daily in this country, it must be the people's right to make their own destiny. The Iraqi people want a political system of direct elections and a constitution that gives them justice and equality for all."
This is also what all Iraqis want. It happens that the Shiites are the loudest voice today because, rightly or wrongly, they are perceived as a potential threat to Western interests.
It is ironic that the very group that was expected to push Iraq toward fundamentalism is leading the call for democracy.
The Shiites, and in particular Sistani, have always seemed one step ahead of everyone else since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime. Having spent almost 30 years as the only real opposition to the Baathists, they were, albeit in a fractious way, more prepared for the post-war environment that the Americans, opposition groups such as the Iraqi National Congress (INC), and the Sunnis.
From the beginning the Shiites were cooperative with the occupying forces, urged on by both Sistani and by the late Ayatollah Mohammed Baqer al-Hakim. They were content to wait, in the knowledge that superior numbers and impending democracy would ensure that Shiites finally had a say in how Iraq would be governed. It also seemed that Shiite leaders were not looking to emulate the Islamic Republic in Iran, but, instead, sought a more pragmatic future. They had everything to gain after Saddam’s fall and reveled in the new religious and social freedoms available to them.
As evidence of this, when the Shiites have had grievances against the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) they have protested peacefully. The holy cities of Najaf and Karbala were tranquil for months after the regime’s fall. Until last October there was a high level of cooperation between local militias and coalition forces. But as time dragged on and the move to self-rule became protracted, the Shiites, rightly, became nervous.
The INC and other opposition groups, which formed the basis of the Iraqi Governing Council, eyed the Shiites with suspicion from day one. A leading INC member promised, "we have not waited this long to see the country slip into the hands of the Shiites. If it comes to it, we will fight." Against this backdrop it is no surprise that many in the council have continually opposed elections. Members, including Ahmad Chalabi, Ayad Allawi and Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, have little or no base of support in Iraq. They could not hope to remain in government after an election.
The coalition's track record in Iraq has been poor, thanks mainly to bad advice from poorly chosen advisors. As a result the US has broken many of its promises. The economy, electricity and basic services have not been restored with expected efficiency and speed. Unemployment is still at almost 60 percent, and not enough initiatives exist aimed at easing the crisis. There is also a lack of security. Consequently, the population is stretched to breaking point. The problems are seen as entrenched so that Saddam’s capture did little to alleviate the feeling that the downward trend will continue.
No one believes anything will change by the June 30 transition deadline.
It is not surprising, then, that the Governing Council’s Kurdish leaders want autonomy for Kurdistan as soon as possible. Mahmoud Othman, an independent Kurdish leader and a council member, recently said that despite promises from the US that Iraqis would be granted sovereignty, once Bremer established himself in Baghdad, “the question of Iraqis ruling directly was over and not talked about again."
Meanwhile, the Governing Council, which was supposedly created to bridge the old and the new Iraq, has failed miserably, both in governing and in counterbalancing Washington’s ambitions. For its part, the council blamed the initial set-up the CPA imposed: "We were given responsibilities but not much authority,” lamented Othman. Indeed, several council members, including Othman and Allawi, have admitted that joining the body was not the best move they could have made. The institution has become a symbol of everything that is wrong with post-war Iraq and a lesson to many potential Iraqi leaders that they may be sold short again come next summer.
The only person who can bridge the gap between reality and the grossly optimistic predictions coming out of Washington is Bremer. In many ways he has been left as the "piggy in the middle," stuck between his hierarchical superiors, who show scant regard for what is happening in Iraq, and a local population that hasn't elected Bremer, but would nevertheless love him to make progress in getting their nation back on its feet.
However if Bremer cannot convince Washington to bow to Shiite pressure and hold elections in Iraq soon, there is no chance of a major US withdrawal from the country this year and perhaps this decade. Unless it truly passes on ownership of the country to the Iraqis, the US will not have a decent chance of pulling Iraq out of its current tailspin.
Mustafa Alrawi, former managing editor of the newspaper Iraq Today, is chief editor of Dubai-based Voice Magazine (www.voice.ae). He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR
end of item
Back to Welcome page
Back to News Index