U.S. Needs To Learn Patience [in Iraq]

"In a petition to the Iraqi electoral commission, an array of Sunni and Kurdish political parties and individuals on November 26 called for a six-month delay in Iraq's national elections for two reasons: "To address the current security situation and to complete the necessary administrative, technical, and systematic arrangements."

The interim Iraqi government, with American support, quickly rejected this appeal and a spokesman for the Shiites insisted that the planned date of January 30, 2005, is "non-negotiable." But there are good reasons to postpone the vote until Iraq is truly ready for it, even if that is months or years away.

While President Bush's repeated call for a "free and democratic Iraq" is noble and correct, fixing Iraq's political system cannot be finished two months from now. Security, as the petitioners indicate, is one main reason. The logic of democratization is another."

Pipes makes sense to me. Here are some more sections that I found to be of interest.

"Polling results find that Mr. Allawi's single-mindedness matches the mood of the Iraqi public. A June survey by Oxford Research International, for example, found that while Iraqis seek democracy in the long term (meaning in about five years), in the short term, they "want a strong man to sort out security, take control of the country, and keep the nation together." The poll has two important implications: Legitimacy derives primarily from control of Iraq and the body politic realistically understands that democracy will emerge only with time and by replacing a receding autocracy.

Unfortunately, this legitimacy is diminished by the coalition forces who carry the brunt of the fighting in Fallujah and elsewhere, sparing the Iraqi authorities from having to repress the mostly Sunni insurgency. What has become, in effect, a war between the American government and the Sunnis of Iraq has spawned an unhealthy situation. As Charles Krauthammer points out, Americans "must make it clear that we will be there to support that new government. But we also have to make it clear that we are not there to lead the fight indefinitely. It is their civil war."

It really is important that coalition forces not be seen as occupiers and this is exactly what the insurgency is trying to create. The goal is force coalition forces into killing civilians and wrecking their homes so that the so-called "ordinary Iraqi citizen" is not inclined to support coalition forces.

"The central government is far from achieving control over all of Iraq and doing so could take several years. Baghdad needs to focus on this existential problem, rather than worry too soon about the complex political issues facing a nascent democratic government of Iraq. Stability now, say I, and democracy later.

Democratization: Voting does not start the democratization process but culminates and ends it. Before Iraqis can benefit from meaningful elections, they need to leave behind the bad habits of Saddam Hussein's tyrannical rule and replace them with the benign ways of civil society. There are many steps ahead, such as creating voluntary institutions (political parties, lobby groups, etc.), entrenching the rule of law, establishing freedom of speech, protecting minority rights, securing property rights, and developing the notion of a loyal opposition. Elections can evolve with these good habits. Voting should start at the municipal level and gradually move up to the national level. Also, they should begin with legislatures and move to the executive branch.

These processes will take time, for it is no simple matter to bring Iraq's fractious population together or to throw off the totalitarian habits of past decades. The experience of countries such as Mexico, South Africa, Russia, China, and South Korea, shows that the road from tyranny to democracy is a long, bumpy one. This difficult undertaking cannot be rushed, much less carried out by foreigners. Iraqis alone can make these advances and they will do so with their own currency through a painful process of trial and error. Americans need to learn patience. This was the advice, in fact, that, days after September 11, the University of Chicago's Jean Bethke Elshtain gave to Mr. Bush, asking him "to teach patience to an impatient people." In Iraq, American impatience could have mortal consequences."

I agree that in essence the bottom line is that it makes sense to postpone elections to build security. In the short term it may cause some more issues, but the long term gain cannot be overstated.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Delay of elections might have acceptance of the, semi-autonomous, kurds, seeing they have always stood on hostile foot with shia and sunni population in iraq.

However, delaying elections would be handing over ammunition to shia cleric al-sadr who would cease keeping himself silent in order to counter-attack the amrican occupation. That is how postponing elections in iraq will be perceived: a definite military occupation.

Also shia supreme cleric al-sistani will disapprove of a continued military occupation. He will be urged into a fatwa to cleanse iraq from US presence. As the main religious shia authority, this will be like opening the gates of hell.

Now the US army has their hands more than full with the sunni population and import terrorists, if the shia, the biggest population in iraq, is added to the reservoir of anti-american movements, it will be impossible for the military to cope.

Delaying elections is both practically and strategically impossible.

Zeruel

Still Driving Traffic

Still one of the most popular posts on the blog.