& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Iraq: Election is just the first step

MUHAMMAD ZAMIR
A general election has been held in Iraq despite a continuing campaign of intimidation and deadly violence. Iraq's Sunni Muslim population, which makes up about 20 per cent of the nation's 15 million eligible voters, heeded the call of their clerics and boycotted the election. The Shias however appear to have listened to Grand Ayatullah Ali Al-Sistani. Although not running for election himself, Iraq's top Shiite cleric had issued an edict describing voting as 'religious duty'.
This was indeed an interesting gambit.
It may be recalled that last year, the US did not initially want elections. They were afraid that the Shias would get the upper hand and there might be another Iran. This time round, a year later, the US Administration felt that the reality had to be accepted and attempts made to contain a possible militant Shia resistance by involving them in State power. This, they thought, could also be another means of neutralising growing Sunni insurgency. Consequently, they used the Ayatullah's popularity to persuade the Shias to vote. Such a step has moved the process forward but also created a political dynamics where there will be Shiite domination within the future government of Iraq.
The Arab press, particularly in the surrounding countries, have interpreted the election as part of an exit strategy for the US and other Occu-
pying forces. They have watched with anxiety as US casualties have exceeded 1400 in Iraq and expenditure exceeded more than US Dollar 100 billion. In this context, like many other Muslim countries, the region had stressed on the need for electioneering and voting conditions that enjoyed credibility. This they reiterated was required for any form of legitimacy.
In this context, the comments in the press in the Middle East have been one of guarded optimism. The Dubai daily 'Al-Khaleej' hoped that 'the Iraqi people will succeed in making these elections a prelude to the departure of foreign troops and the restoration of Iraq's sovereignty.' Saudi Arabia's 'Arab News' described the holding of the election as 'a much needed victory for moderation' but at the same time pointed out that the 'inevitable Shia majority of legislators should work for the future of all Iraqis, to inflict an even more significant defeat on the men of violence.' The Saudis have neither loved Saddam (since his invasion of Kuwait) nor Shia state power as represented by Iran. However, such dislike has now been smothered with the prospect of Sunni republican militancy jumping borders and gaining ground within Saudi Arabia itself. This possibility is now persuading them to accept a Shia majority Iraq. They are doing
so because they now know that the USA will not allow a militant Shia Iraq.
Jordan's 'Al-Dastour' has speculated about the electoral lists and the manner in which 'democracy and freedom' is being ushered into Iraq. A note of caution is also suggested for the future Shia led government. Cairo's 'Al-Ahram' and 'Al-Akhbar' have described the difficult conditions under which voting has taken place. They have also reminded Iraqi authorities of the need for 'national reconciliation.'.
Israel's response as reflected in both 'Haaretz' as well as the 'Jerusalem Post,' was as expected. They welcomed the holding of elections and the ushering in of democracy, but interestingly enough also made it a point to refer to Lebanon being the only other democratic country in the region. This was their way of rubbing salt into other perceptions of democracy as it is being practised in Egypt, Syria, Jordan and the member countries of the GCC.
What is important is the need to understand that the election is just a first step. Whatever the result, it is just the beginning of a long haul to stability which will have to overcome more violence and political turmoil.
Brigadier General Doug Lute, Director of Operations for US Central Command, which runs US military operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan has shown wisdom when he commented that 'the election themselves are not going to prove to be a panacea'. To this might be added Senator Edward Kennedy's comment that 'the US military presence in Iraq has become part of the problem, not part of the solution.'
There are several tough tasks ahead. The 275 member National Assembly has to elect a President and two Deputies by two-thirds majority. The three-man Presidency Council will then have two weeks to choose a Prime Minister and a Cabinet, which must subsequently obtain a National Assembly vote of confidence. the National Assembly has until August 15 to write a draft constitution. This will have to be put to a referendum by October 15. If the referendum succeeds with a two-thirds majority, then an election for a permanent government will be held in December. If this fails, the whole process starts again.
In all likelihood, the United Iraqi Alliance, which has the blessing of Ayatullah Sistani should emerge as the single biggest force in the National Assembly. So far so good. It is however the Kurdish factor that might upset the equation.
Kurdish leaders from rival factions in northern Iraq have united in hopes of winning a significant bloc of seats in the National Assembly.
They are also insisting that they should get either the Presidency or the Prime Ministership. They have already started talking of Jalal Talaban, leader of one of the major Kurdish groups being suitable for the post of President. This is being supported by his rival Massoud Barzani, who prefers Jalal's presence in Baghdad rather than in the Kurdish north. This aspect might delay the agenda particularly for the Shia community, which has been waiting for many decades for supremacy.
The US Administration has to be careful that they are not tempted into identifying Iraqi legitimacy with unchecked Shia rule. They have to remember about the multi-ethnicity of Iraq, the tribal structures and the divide among religious denominations.
In the coming months, the United Nations as well as the US and British presence should take stop to prevent any group from using the political process to establish the kind of dominance previously enjoyed solely by the Sunnis. A process of conciliation is necessary to change the mind-set. It must be seen that efforts are being made towards greater understanding without any form of discrimination on the basis of race, tribe faith or gender.
Iraq's election has opened
another page in the history of the Middle East, There has been a multiparty election. That is a positive.
However, the challenge comes now. The mechanical part has been partially completed. A lot remains to be done nevertheless in the context of creating institutions. Security and eventual stability will require dialogue with the Sunni leadership. This is an important factor that cannot be neglected. Only the first phase of a political evolution from military occupation to political legitimacy of sorts has been completed.
It will not be enough to say that 'we have given the Iraqis a chance to govern themselves.' Any governance requires a structure, and that most sadly does not exist in Iraq today. There is very little of the banking system and practically nothing in terms of a structured decentralised administration. The security forces as well as the defence establishment lack motivation. Judiciary, healthcare facilities and educational establishments are also suffering from severe impairment. There are, in addition, hundreds of thousands of internally displaced refugees. Recession and unemployment have also reached critical dimensions.
The United Nations and other important powers need to help the Iraqis, more than ever, over the next two years. They have to create a sustainable, free Iraq which can exist by itself. Failure to do this will mean an implosion, with radicals and fundamentalists creating more convulsions for the region.
The US needs to withdraw but not in haste. A precipitous withdrawal, based on domestic public opinion will now be seen as an abnegation of responsibility. It might instead create civil war and anarchy, worse than what we have seen in the Balkans. Muhammad Zamir is a former Secretary and Ambassador -- any response to mzamir@dhaka.net