Here, elections don't mean democracy by j. iqbal

"The point here is that elections don't bring democracy. The roots of any democracy lie in a people united in their desire to govern in accordance with a rule of law that guarantees the rights of all. Such people then create conditions in which elections can certify their desire by selecting those who will govern. This produces democracy. What occurred in Iraq...was anything but such an expression of Iraqi national unity. The Iraqi election was an American-brokered event..." Scott Ritter, former UN chief Weapons Inspector in Iraq, wrote this in his article, "Hijacking Democracy in Iraq," not after last week's polls in Iraq but after another election -- the first of a three-part election/referendum series that began on January 30, 2005. As the US and Britain boast about Dec. 15 as a "great" and "historic" day that saw a massive turnout of Iraqi populace and reiterate euphorically the connection between election and democracy, it is perhaps a good time to be reminded of Ritter's words. Especially since the constantly improving turnout in successive elections failed to arrest the incidents of insurgency, with no letup in the car bombings, kidnappings or beheadings. Especially because in this election-packed year confessions coming from the direction of the CIA forced President Bush to admit that the war itself had been waged on a case of weak intelligence. The December elections came in the backdrop of anti-war forces gaining virtual ascendancy within the United States, with an unprecedented bashing of the White House witnessed on the electronic media. Expectedly, the government came up with a series of presidential addresses under the head "Victory in Iraq" as a befitting answer. Saddam may have been captured, WMDs may have been conspicuous by their absence, the reasons of going to war may have been faulty, but democracy in Iraq is the next best task the government must perform before deciding to withdraw troops. This, the world is told, shall have a domino effect on the region. We are expected to believe that the policy of "imposed" democracy would work as well as the "imposed" dictatorships did in the last half century. But the "pop-up" democracy of the occupying forces may not materialise. Their claims may be contested on more than one levels of analysis. Ritter's suggestion of people's own desire to bring democracy may provide a good starting point. The other difficulties are partially highlighted by Catharine Dalpino, an Asia expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington: "We think the fall of the Berlin Wall is the model all the other countries will follow, that democracy is just waiting to happen once you remove all the things that get in the way. It requires special conditions, and even then there are different kinds of democracies that we may not like." Well, the Berlin Wall did not involve an occupying power, or at least a visible manifestation of it. Two other examples quoted most in justification of efforts to democratise Iraq are that of Germany and Japan. These two countries continue to exist as successful functioning democracies despite all doubts, goes the argument. In order to say that Iraq's situation is unique, it may be worthwhile to go back into history. Iraq's Shia majority has been ruled by the Sunni minority since 1638, when Mesopotamia became a part of the Sunni Ottoman Turkish Empire. During the First World War, when the Ottoman Empire was defeated, the oil-rich Kurdish areas were attached to the erstwhile Mesopotamia to form modern Iraq. The new country was sharply divided along sectarian and ethnic lines and was thus not the homogeneous society as some other occupied countries were. Middle East expert Dilip Hiro takes it further: "That the ruling minority was overthrown by the United States, a foreign superpower, totally alien to Iraqis in religion, language and culture, is what separates the Iraq situation from others." It is rather simplistic to believe that the occupying forces were unaware of this basic lesson in history when they first thought of invading Iraq. Before we move on to the more slippery conclusion that Iraq's "balkanisation" is the desired objective of such a move, it may be useful to rule out the formulas that have been suggested as futile in Iraq's case. In a detailed article, "How to Build a Democratic Iraq" (Foreign Affairs, May/June 2003), Adeed I. Dawisha and Karen Dawisha suggest a federal form of government as the solution, conceding Iraq's ethnic and sectarian diversity. A weak centre pitched against powerful federating units having full control over their territories may be the answer to Iraq's problems. Going by this formula, the oil-rich Kurdish North and Shia South may leave nothing in the hands of the Sunni Centre. Unless, of course, oil is left with the central government, which itself is a dangerous proposition. The article suggests that instead of three ethnically or religiously based federal units, Iraq should have the 18 units/provinces that Iraq currently has. In the most recent incident, when the country had to vote on the constitutional draft, we saw once again that the provinces voted as ethnically or religiously as possible. The result was foretold, to say the least. So where do you draw the line? The Dawishas go on to argue that Iraq must have a bicameral legislature with the upper house ensuring a sense of participation among the federal units. But from what we know, there is not going to be an upper house under the current arrangement -- at least till another few years. Hence our temptation to side with the theory that democracy in Iraq is as big a lie as WMDs were. Americans have seen enough of the region to know what the pent up grievances of decades and centuries can entail in a democracy. The absence of opposition and the potential success of fundamentalists and radicals as a consequence is the last thing they want in the oil-rich Middle East. The US may not be seeking a spill-over of democracy in the region, but I doubt if they are aware that the anarchy they are sowing in Iraq may spill over too. Or is that too a "desired" outcome?