The Myth of Elections in Iraq

There will be no January elections in Iraq. The reason is not civil unrest; instead it is because the US Government cannot make up its mind. With less than two months to go, there is no mention of what the permanent Iraqi government is supposed to look like, or how elections will occur. One thought is that Iraqi voters will merely choose between slates of candidates for various offices. The slates would be a combination of various ethnic minorities and loyalties to prevent one group…for example the Shias…from controlling every office in the administration. Yet another school of thought argues that the Prime Minister will name his cabinet, and that the election will be between sanitized choices for the parliament. Each province would send a representative to Baghdad, who then would have one of them named Prime Minister by a President of sorts. This would allow power-sharing again between Shias and Sunnis, who would split roles. And then there’s the possibility of rigging the game even more: mock parties would be created with a certain number of members. The proportion of victory would determine the allotment of seats. And then there is the threat of a unity ticket…whereby nearly every office and seat would have candidates unopposed. Who would become prime minister if a direct election was held today? Dare we suggested Moqtada al-Sadr?

And there is the concern of the policymakers at the State Department and perhaps the Defense Department. How do you create a benign regime in Iraq that is strong enough to defend itself but not attack American interests? In some circles, that means not allowing elections at all. After all, the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz reported a conversation between Democrat Tom Lantos and Laborite member of the Knesset Colette Avital in September of 2002 where Lantos explained that while the US military would eventually leave…a pro-Western dictator would control Iraq until they “learn how to run a state”. Lantos believed that this would take approximately five to six years. While Lantos is not part of the Administration, he was one of the biggest Democratic supporters of the Iraq war in the House. He worked hard to convince other Democrats to support the President.

But perhaps the most incisive development was the resignation of both Secretary of State Powell and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. Having taken the case for Iraq to the United Nations and losing face in the process, Powell likely had no desire to have his personal credibility undermined again if elections did not occur. Appearing on “This Week” in September, the Secretary of State seemed to contradict testimony Defense head Don Rumsfeld had told a Congressional committee days earlier. Powell spoke of needing a “comprehensive, full, free, and fair election in order to get the credibility we want it to have”. Rumsfeld had told the committee that if violence prevented the election being held in parts of Iraq, “so be it”. Assuming Condi Rice is confirmed as Secretary of State, she is likely to accede to his belief. If this is true, then deciding what provinces are ready for an election could prove an even harder decision than how to stage it. Just as US troops got the upper hand in Fallujah, insurgents began to target Mosul, which had been quiet for months.

Thus it appears the “January surprise” is that Iraq will remain election-free for a little while longer.