Democracy won't be an overnight sensation in Iraq

Wary observers on both sides of the world watch the transition process

12:02 AM CST on Sunday, February 8, 2004

By ED TIMMS / The Dallas Morning News

Even at its best, democracy can be a messy and imperfect process.

Slavery was rejected in the United States only after a bloody civil war. Women didn't have a constitutional right to vote until the early 20th century.

Now, Iraq is the latest crucible for an experiment in democracy. So far, it's been a difficult birth.

"This is going to be a time-consuming process," said Dr. Ghassan El-Eid, a professor of political science at Central Connecticut State University who specializes in the Middle East. "And frankly, most Iraqis nowadays are preoccupied with basic survival issues – finding jobs, staying safe and secure, getting medicine for the sick."

How soon democracy will take root there, indeed whether the building blocks for democracy presently exist, is open to debate. As many Iraqis clamor for direct elections, some U.S. officials and experts on the Middle East worry that may be premature.

"We've pledged to ensure that minority rights, in this case ... principally Kurds and Sunni in Iraq, are respected," said Patrick Basham, an analyst with the Cato Institute's Center for Representative Government. "And yet those who are most likely to come into power in a near-term election are going to be those most likely to be insensitive to those concerns."

For all the potential benefits of a democratic state in a region better known for its feudal monarchies and autocracies, there are risks: skeptics worry that if the experiment fails, that may open up a Pandora's box of Islamic fundamentalism, ethnic division, anarchy, violence and regional instability. Women's rights might regress if Islamic fundamentalists become the dominant political force.

There are no guarantees – and some evidence to suggest the contrary – that, at least in the short-term a new, improved Iraq will embrace American values or be supportive of U.S. foreign policy in the region.

If successful, bringing freedom and stability to the Iraqi people may end up as the Bush administration's most tangible justification for military intervention in Iraq. The weapons of mass destruction that were supposed to be in Saddam Hussein's arsenal have proven to be elusive or illusory. His connections to the al-Qaeda terrorist network are murky at best.

A democratic Iraq, senior administration officials have indicated, could serve as an example and an inspiration to other nations and perhaps help to calm a volatile region.

Vice President Dick Cheney, speaking in Rome recently, emphasized that point.

"Democracies do not breed the anger and radicalism that drag down whole societies and export violence," he said. "Terrorists do not find fertile recruiting grounds in societies where young people have the right to guide their own destinies and choose their own leaders."

It may take some time before it is clear whether or not a free and democratic Iraq will be, as President Bush has predicted, a "watershed event in the global democratic revolution."

In the past, promoting democracy in the Middle East was not highest on the United States' list of priorities. And that led to alliances with a cast of characters – including Saddam Hussein – who were never likely to be recognized as humanitarians or enlightened leaders.

Dictatorial governments could be persuaded to support U.S. policies, even if their respective populations didn't. Democracy is sometimes more fickle.

"I think that's why we are where we are right now, because honestly, we did not in the past give sufficient support to democratic norms in the Middle East," said University of North Texas political scientist Emile Sahliyeh. "We supported autocratic, monarchic regimes. Especially during the Cold War, we even encouraged Islamic conservatives to contain communism."

If the United States is serious about democracy, "it must contend with the possibility that elections will produce governments that are quite hostile to our interests," said Daniel Brumberg, chairman of the non-profit Foundation on Democratization and Political Change in the Middle East and an analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Some experts, for example, don't expect that a democratic Iraq will applaud the United States' relationship with Israel or embrace its position on the Palestinian issue.

Certainly, democracies don't always agree. Germany and France, two longtime allies, actively opposed the war. Turkey, one of the few Muslim countries with a government that even approaches a functioning democracy, decided that it didn't want to the United States to launch a northern assault on Iraq from its soil.

In the long term, proponents argue that the United States is still better-served if democracy flourishes in the Middle East. For one thing, that might diminish the influence of Islamic fundamentalists among the economically and politically oppressed populations of autocratic countries.

Despite Saddam Hussein's fate, however, decidedly undemocratic regimes remain in power – and allies of the United States.

Dr. El-Eid observes that most regimes in the region still tend to be more preoccupied with hanging onto power and remaining in control rather than promoting policies to serve the interests of their people.

"That's the dilemma and that's the tragedy for the people in the Middle East," he said.

In such cases, Dr. Brumberg said, the United States may need to take a more cautious approach and promote the kinds of political reforms that would not undermine the stability of these goverrnments. One option is to emphasize what's been a longstanding part of the United States' ongoing effort to encourage democracy: liberalization of societal institutions, political openness, but not dramatic short-term political change.

Improving a population's earning potential encourages more education, which stimulates a modernizing of attitudes, said Mr. Basham. "Then you see these various values and attitudes start to perculate within the society."

Dr. El-Eid suggests that for democracy to be sustained and thrive, it must be compatible with the culture. The concept of democracy in a predominantly Moslem state such as Iraq, he predicted, may differ from what has evolved in the United States over two centuries.

The separation between government and religion found in many Western democracies, for example, may not be so distinct in a Muslim state. Women's rights may be a point of contention between secularists and influential religious leaders.

Despite recent setbacks, efforts are still underway to prod a political evolution – even if what's unfolding is, for now, a distant relation to democracy as it is practiced in the United States and other Western countries.

U.S. officials had hoped to lead Iraq to democracy and self-rule in measured steps, none involving a direct popular election for some time.

Caucuses, with participants largely selected by U.S. officials, were to soon pick a transitional legislature, which in turn would form a provisional government for Iraq that would assume power by July. Direct elections would be organized at a later date.

Logistically, organizing a direct election was seen as a daunting task, not to mention the difficulties in deciding who would be eligible to vote. In a country where a single and repressive political party held sway for decades, extremists may be better organized than Iraqi moderates – and that might lead to grief for minority populations.

So the caucus plan emerged.

"It is less democratic, theoretically, but in some ways it can be more representative," Dr. Brumberg said of the caucus system.

The U.S. timetable for democracy in Iraq was jeopardized when thousands of Shiites marched in protest to voice their opposition to the caucus process.

U.S. officials were caught off-guard. They've since solicited assistance from the United Nations, a body whose views on what should be done in Iraq were largely ignored as the drumbeat for war played out last year. On Tuesday, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said he would send a team to Iraq to assess the feasibility of direct elections.

The majority of Iraq's population is Shiite. Many are followers of religious leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Husseini al-Sistani. With little else to serve as a model, some emerging political movements in Iraq have formed around religious leaders.

"This idea of holding caucuses, and an election based on caucuses, is not really acceptable to most Shia," Dr. El-Eid said.

"And the reason is they know if they hold direct elections based on 'one-man, one-vote,' basically they could decide the outcome."

That may be a sobering prospect to Iraq's Sunni Arabs, who, as Saddam Hussein's political power base, enjoyed a privileged status under his rule and under previous regimes as well. Iraq's Shiite and Sunni Arabs, who have different interpretations of Islam, share a long and acrimonious history. Dr. Sahliyeh attributes violent resistance in Iraq to Sunnis who have seen their power being dismantled – and will not accept that easily.

The notion that Shiites will dominate Iraqi politics, however, may be simplistic, according to Dr. Larry Diamond, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and co-editor of the Journal of Democracy. He does not see Shiites as a monolithic block.

"If a genuine democracy is able to emerge, in free and fair elections, I do not believe that any one political force will dominate Iraqi politics," he said. There will need to be coalitions. Once it becomes clear to the Sunni Arab and Kurd populations that democracy in Iraq will be fluid and coalitional ... I think some of their concerns will be alleviated."

The Kurds in northern Iraq have enjoyed some degree of autonomy since the 1991 Persian Gulf War and typically favor some variation on that arrangement, or independence, over inclusion in a post-Saddam Iraq.

With time, the influence of religious leaders, and hostility or mistrust among ethnic groups, may diminish, especially if political parties that are not primarily organized along ethnic or religious lines do not prosper.

Several secular parties are exploring ways to work together to counter the power of religious groups.

"Polls tell us, for example, that most Shia don't want an Islamic state," said Dr. Brumberg. "They're not followers of a cleric."

Time may be the key – for Iraq and the United States. And a quick fix may not be in the cards.

"I think the United States will have to remain heavily engaged in Iraq with assistance for its economic and political development for many years to come," Dr. Diamond said.

"If we pull out prematurely, militarily or politically, it will be a disaster and we will risk losing everything we have sacrificed for."

Copyright 2004 Dallas Morning News 

Back to CCSU in the News