After the Iraqi Elections

Power wrangling in the political arena will not cease after the country’s elections but enter a new stage

By ZHANG LIJUN

GOING ON SMOOTHLY: Workers of a polling station for Iraqi exiles in Iran’s capital of Tehran are clearing up the ballots

The Iraqi elections concluded on January 30 with a higher than expected voter turnout and fewer violent attacks than expected. The event was the first free poll in Iraq in half a century, with voters choosing a 275-member national assembly that will draw up a constitution and install a new government later in the year.

Expected and Unexpected

There was wide concern before the elections in the international community about the security situation in Iraq. Since some militia groups threatened to assault candidates and voters, observers feared that the elections might trigger a new surge of conflicts between U.S. forces and Iraqi security guards and the anti-American insurgents, and that the vote might be undermined by violence and bloodshed. On the other hand, a number of Sunni political parties and organizations called for a boycott of the elections. These issues added to the concern that there would be a low voter turnout.

But what happened on election day exceeded the expectations of the people. Though violent incidents occurred here and there throughout the country during the voting period, casualties remained lower than some had anticipated. Some 35 people died on election day. Analysts have predicted that as many as 60 percent of the 14 million Iraqis who were registered to vote went to the polls. The newly appointed U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the elections went far better than expected, marking a big step toward democracy in Iraq. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan also hailed the Iraqi general elections as an important milestone for the country, saying Iraqi people should be applauded for their determination to decide their own future despite the violent threats of insurgents.

Crucial to the Future

CRUCIAL MANDATE: Iraqi voters show an unexpectedly high enthusiasm to vote

Before the elections, many people in Iraq and other Middle East countries, including some Iraqi Interim Government members, warned that the elections might drag the country into a civil war. It was not just an exaggeration. The biggest problem in Iraq is its ethnic division. The old grudge between the Sunnis, the Shiites and the Kurds is so deep that it cannot be removed in a short time. The interference of the United States in Iraq’s internal affairs makes the problem more complicated. Currently, the United States has granted much independence to the Kurds and Shiite Muslims, which has made it difficult to establish an efficient central government with full powers in Iraq.

The January 30 elections were actually a reallocation of political power in Iraq. All three major ethnic groups have their own considerations. The Shiites, who were oppres-sed under the rule of Saddam Hussein, showed great enthusiasm toward the elections, hoping to become the most influential force through the elections and change the lower status it held under Saddam Hussein’s Sunni-dominant regime. The Sunnis, however, have been unwilling to accept a future without key political representation in the country. And the Kurds want to obtain more self-governance.

According to the Iraqi Interim Constitution, the future Iraq will be a federal state and carry out divisions of powers between a central government and local governments. Self-governance in the northern regions where Kurds reside will be maintained, and Kurdish and Arabic will be official languages. No citizens or organizations will be allowed to own weapons. The Iraqi army will be unified and controlled by the central government.

But, will the final result of the elections satisfy all parties? The answer may be no. The elections will not end the contradictions and conflicts among the Sunnis, the Shiites and the Kurds. And in the near future, such conflicts may prove graver. In the process of power transformation, new struggles and squabbles are likely to surface.

U.S. Policy Unchanged

ON GUARD: U.S. soldiers patrol on the streets of Baghdad during the voting

Promoting Western-style democracy in Iraq is at the core of the U.S. new Middle East strategy. Given the current developments of global counter-terrorist campaign, reforming Iraq into an important ally in the Arab world is a priority consideration for U.S. attempts to dominate Middle East issues. Although the U.S. occupation of Iraq has encountered strong opposition from its international allies and the Bush administration’s decision to go to war in Iraq has been attacked at home, Washington will not give up its plan to reform and reshape Iraq. Holding free and democratic elections in Iraq has been viewed by the Bush administration as a good opportunity and platform to reach the above objectives.

The Bush administration paid great attention to the elections and made active preparations. The United States had called on the international community to extend a hand and help a free Iraq make a fresh start. Last November, 19 creditor nations of the Paris Club, an informal group of official creditors whose role is to find coordinated and sustainable solutions to the payment difficulties of debtor nations, agreed to exempt 80 percent of the debts that Iraq owed to them, amounting to $33 billion. The 150,000 U.S. troops that are stationed in Iraq were all deployed to ensure the security of the elections. During the elections, Secretary of State Rice and National Security Advisor Stephen J. Hadley allegedly briefed Bush on the situation throughout the day.

Bush commented on the results of the elections with high praise. He emphasized that it showed the determination of the Iraqi people to embrace freedom and that Iraq would be a liberal voice coming from the heart of the Middle East. He also said the elections showed that Iraqi people have taken a stand against the anti-democratic ideology of the terrorists. But Bush warned that the elections would not bring an immediate end to the violence in the country and pledged the United States will continue to train and help Iraqis bolster its own security forces so that it is capable of shouldering the obligations of maintaining security on its own.

Thus, after the elections, the United States may let the new Iraqi Government bear more duties in maintaining social stability and administration, but will never loosen its position in the key areas of security, energy and diplomacy as long as the country remains volatile. It also will not allow other countries to exert an influence on the burgeoning political democratization process in Iraq.

Middle East Influence

Some Arab countries in the Middle East view the war that the United States launched in Iraq in March 2003 as a threat to regional or national security. But they have refrained from making any reaction of displeasing the United States. Generally speaking, they are trying to coordinate their stances on the Iraq issue. These countries have asked U.S. forces to leave Iraq while closely watching the evolution of the situation in Iraq so as to make a reciprocal reaction to it. But because of geopolitical or religious concerns, their stances toward the Iraqi elections differ.

Iran made an official statement after the elections, describing it as an important step toward complete independence and democracy in Iraq. Still, Iranian leaders believe that the United States would not accept a totally free, independent Iraqi Government if it did not maintain cooperation with the United States and Israel. Iran used to strongly oppose the U.S. occupation in Iraq and its political influence in the country. But after the elections, Iran seems to have given it new considerations, as the direct beneficiary of the elections is expected to be Shiite Iraqis. In Iran, the Shiites account for the majority of the population and have close links with Iraqi Shiites. If the Shiites dominate Iraq, the strength of Shiites in the Persian Gulf area will increase, which may raise the clout of Iran in dealing with regional and international affairs.

Jordan, as a close neighbor of Iraq, does not want to see Iraq in a continual state of disorder. Other countries, like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, actually fear a new Iraq under the control of the Shiites may pose a threat. Under these circumstances, the January 30 elections will not only change the future political structure of Iraq, but could change the geopolitical makeup of the entire Middle East.

Later this year, the elected national assembly will form a new government and draft a permanent constitution. During this process, new power struggles among various political factions in Iraq are expected to take place once again. As it is in politics, the power wrestling in Iraq will not come to end, but enter a new stage as the new government takes shape. However, any escalation of the more serious conflicts arising from ethnic and religious differences in Iraq could lead to great setbacks or even the abortion of the political reconstruction process in the country.