DEMOCRACY BEHIND TANK BARRICADES

For Washington the elections in Iraq are a milestone on the way to freedom but for Iraqis they are another step into civil war

By Ulrich Ladurner

[This article originally published in: DIE ZEIT 05/2005 is translated from the German on the World Wide Web, http://www.zeit.de.]




Many Iraqis believe that the most sought-after terrorist in Iraq Musab al-Sargawi, is an American agent. This sounds insane and therefore can be quickly dismissed as conspiracy theory. Such folly is known from the Arabian area.

Many Iraqis think that Prime minister Ijad Allawi is a marionette of the US government. This sounds a little less mad. In any case, many Europeans agree. Nevertheless this can be dismissed as a half-truth.

Many Iraqis believe the Iraqi soldiers recruited and trained by the US army are only clones of GIs. These soldiers wear sunglasses. A genuine Iraqi soldier would not wear sunglasses. These soldiers carry their kalashnikovs as US soldiers carry their M16-rifles.

Why is this important? Because Iraqis will elect a National Assembly on January 30. They will write a constitution by the fall of 2005. If approved in a referendum, a parliament will be elected in 2006 on its foundation. This parliament will choose a new democratic government in 2006 at the latest. While this is a beautiful plan, the elections will only have significance if the Iraqis do not see them as a product of a new intrigue from Washington. When Washington hunts al-Sargawi as a terrorist while Iraqis see him as a CIA agent, the great experiment of elections in Iraq is seen very differently. What Washington sees as a milestone of pacification can be a step back, even a step into the abyss, from the view of Iraqis.

Almost nothing has the same meaning for Iraqis and Americans. From al-Sargawi and Allawi to the Iraqi army, there is hardly a common interest between the liberator and the liberated. There was a commonality in April 2003. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis were happy about the overthrow of the dictator Saddam Hussein. With all mistrust toward Washington, the invasion overthrew the man who was hated and feared like nobody else.

Now there are elections. January 30 will be a high point of the liberation- and democratization process. Therefore reviewing the 20-month occupation is sensible. This time can be described as the history of a dramatic estrangement. The torture scandals of Americans at Abu Ghraib, Brits in Basra and now the Iraqi government are striking and scandalous signposts with a message for Iraqis: the liberator is an oppressor. The American conquest of the city of Falluja in November is only one stage of this process. The perception of reality of Iraqis is far from the perception of Americans. Yesterday the overthrow of the dictator seemed to open the gate to a harder but better future for all Iraqis. Today it appears to many as the first step into civil war.

AUTHORITIES KEEP VOTING PLACES SECRET FOR FEAR OF ATTACKS

How could this happen? Since April 2003 Washington has declared victory after victory, political and military victories. When Saddam Hussein’s two sons were killed in July 2003, the US commanding general Ricardo Sanchez said: “This is a great day for the Iraqi people, a day with important consequences.” When Saddam Hussein himself was captured in December, the US civilian overseer Paul Bremer said: “This is a great day in the history of the Iraqi people. Their future was never so hopeful.” Afterwards Musab al-Sargawi became the focus of attention. When Falluja was stormed, the US central command exclaimed: “This will break the back of the resistance!” On the political plane there was also only good news or news of success. When the US returned Iraq’s sovereignty to Iraq on June 28 instead of June 30 as planned, this act was carried out two days ahead of schedule for security reasons. Bush said: “We are not only on schedule but are even faster than planned!”

The Iraqis experienced this very differently. The land gradually sank into chaos. The good news that they wanted to proclaim fizzled out. The US didn’t win the hearts and minds. Rather they have lost hearts and minds more and more. When they conquered Falluja, they had to admit that the rebels were not mainly foreigners as they claimed but natives.

This does not mean that Iraq is lost for democracy or condemned forever to tyranny or civil war. the vast majority of Iraqis undoubtedly want to vote, 88 percent according to the latest poll. The Shiites above all crowd to the election booths. For them, it is the chance of gaining a proper share in power for the first time since Iraq’s founding. All Iraqis want to be free and determine their fate themselves. Saying this given the tragedy of Iraq is certainly a banality that must be described as cruelly cynical. That does not irritate George W. Bush. He carefully proclaims a victory again. “The terrorists know that a decisive moment approaches in Iraq. If elections take place, democracy will strike lasting roots and the terrorists will suffer a tremendous defeat.”

To understand the skepticism of Iraqis, the dictum of the US president should be expanded. The “conditions” under which the elections take place are crucial for Iraqis. Five car bombs blow up daily in Baghdad and its suburbs; more than 30 Iraqis die on average. Most of the 7000 candidates didn’t appear in public because they feared for their lives. The majority of the 5000 voting places were unknown. In Falluja, the authorities kept the places secret until the last moment to deny targets to the assassins. For security reasons, premier Ijad Allawi imposed a state of emergency. That hardly helped the credibility of the polling. Some Iraqis spoke of “secret elections.”

ERRORS OF AMERICANS ARE SEEN AS INTENTIONAL ACTS


Something else is even more important The election law insures majority control. Whoever wins in an election receives all the votes. This means minorities and regions will have few chances to be properly represented. Large groups like the Shiites will be strengthened with nearly unrestricted authority over the ayatollah Al-al-Sistani or the well-organized Kurds. The franchise is not the main reason that many leading Sunnites called their followers to boycott the election. They expect very trifling electoral support on account of the security situation and therefore will be hardly represented in the National Assembly. Moderate and pro-American Sunnite politicians like Adrian Patschatschi urge postponement of the elections.

This election law prompts many Iraqis to suspect that the US is not intent on democratization of Iraq but the dismemberment or permanent paralysis of this mammoth state through internal conflicts. “The mistakes of the US are considered intentional and its statements hypocritical. The assumed secret agenda, namely the domination of Iraq, is a reason for the armed resistance” as a study of the respected International Crisis Group summarized. A survey of the International Republic Institute from September 2004 shows that this is a widespread belief. Around 67 percent of Iraqis believe that the US is “that power that most likely will trigger a civil war.”

This may seem surprising for the self-appointed liberators. However one recalls the first days after Saddam Hussein’s overthrow. At that time the plunderers had a free hand under the eyes of the US army. In Baghdad only one building among all the public buildings was without a broken windowpane: the oil ministry. This could not have been an accident, many thought at that time. Could the strongest power of the world have stopped the plunderers from the Baghdad suburbs?

The questions multiply. What began as the suspicion of a few slowly became the certainty of many. Conspiracy theoreticians have received massive encouragement. When the interim government was formed in June 2003 by the US civilian authority, places were assigned to the Shiites, the Sunnites, the Kurds and the Turkmen. Where were the Arabs? many asked. Why were the places only assigned according to religious criteria? There are also Shiite Kurds. Thus the doubts grew. What happened in Falluja? Weren’t the large majority of Iraqi soldiers who assisted the US army Shiites and Kurds? What happened in Mossul? The Kurdish Peschmerga in the uniform of the new Iraqi army crushed the resistance in this multi-national city.

While Washington announces victories and now and then admits mistakes in whispers, many Iraqis see in all this the will to the systematic shattering of their state and the elections as an instrument to that end. One certainly need not accept this interpretation. In any case, the insurgents turn conditions upside down. Opposition against the elections appears as a patriotic act and the elections as the betrayal of the Muslim nation Iraq.

Many Iraqis voted anxiously and with mistrust, fearful for their lives. The US president fired a propaganda round. The Iraqis wait skeptically whether anything will change for them, whether some of them will be killed, whether they will have electricity more than a few hours a day and will be able to send their children to school without danger. They will remember whether they were treated as Iraqis or as Sunnites, Shiites, Kurds or Turkmen. That is their only protection from civil war and ruin.

ELECTIONS IN IRAQ: TIMETABLE TO FREEDOM

111 parties and candidates competed in the election of the National Assembly on January 30. The most important lists are the Shiite “United Iraqi Coalition” around grand-ayatollah al-Sistani, the “Iraqi list” of premier Allawi who is also a Shiite, the Sunnite election alliance of Iraqis of president al-Ghawar, the “Alliance of Independent Democrats” of pro-American Sunnites and ex-foreign minister Adrian Patschatschi and the “Kurdish Alliance” of the once fragmented Kurdish parties KDP, PUK and their allies.