Transformation or stillborn democracy?
For dueling views on the importance of Sunday's elections in Iraq, we called on fellows from two of the top think tanks in Washington. Nile Gardiner is with the conservative Heritage Foundation, which supports U.S. intervention and continuing presence in Iraq. Patrick Basham is with the libertarian Cato Institute, which opposed going to war with Iraq. I asked both the same questions:
Q: How important, really, are these elections, and what's their effect going to be in Iraq?
Nile Gardiner: I think the elections are hugely important. They are a major symbol of Iraq's transformation from brutal dictatorship to flourishing democracy, and they will hopefully send a message across the Arab world that free elections and the democratic process can work.
Patrick Basham: These elections are very important, but unfortunately a lot of their importance stems from the fact that they are going to have a negative impact on the political reconstruction of Iraq. (They) are premature and ill-advised ... and therefore they are going to primarily serve the purpose of disenfranchising the Sunni minority, which will, I fear, create a situation in which an initial election may produce a stillborn democracy.
Q: How will we measure the success or failure of these electionsâ¢
Gardiner: I think certainly the turnout will be of critical (importance), and I would expect that we would see possibly a 50 percent turnout in the election, which is a very respectable figure and comparable to turnout in U.S. national elections.
Basham: It's important in measuring the success or failure of the elections not to get overly concerned about numbers -- setting a particular yardstick for turnout, for example. The election's legitimacy is going to be determined more by who is in the parliament after Jan. 30 than who participates in the election. It really comes down to (if) the majority that's elected on Jan. 30, which is a Shiite majority, takes the steps to include the Kurds and the Sunnis in the constitutional-drafting process.
Q: The government created by these elections -- will it be able to govern?
Gardiner: Yes. I think that the elected government will have the mandate of the Iraqi people. However, it will continue to need the support of U.S. and coalition forces in order to deal with the insurgency.
Basham: It will be able to control parts of the country in the short term, mainly in the largely Shiite areas of Iraq. But it is coming to power at a time when much of the country is lawless and is at war with itself and with what is viewed by some Iraqis as an occupying military power. Therefore, until the security situation improves -- which is probably only going to come about through the development of an Iraqi security force of sufficient quality and quantity -- the short-term forecasts, if they are to be realistic, have to be quite negative.
Q: What is your worst postelection nightmare?
Gardiner: (That there) would be some form of civil war in Iraq between the Sunnis and the Shiites and the total disengagement from the political process of the Sunnis.
Basham: (A) post-Jan. 30 civil war.
Q: What is your best-case scenario -- your most hopeful one?
Gardiner: (A) flourishing, successful democracy in Iraq that is a shining beacon to the rest of the Middle East. And an Iraq where terror and fear no longer dominate the streets of so many cities.
Basham: (T)hat Sunni participation is higher than anticipated and a reasonable number of Sunnis are elected to the assembly and, critically, a majority of the assembly makes a concerted effort to include the Sunni minority in the drafting of the constitution.
Q: What was your position on the war in the first place, and what do you think now about how it has turned out?
Gardiner: I was a very strong supporter for military action to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Looking back, I believe the position taken by the U.S. and Britain was exactly the right decision. And I think that history will look back favorably upon the action of the U.S. and the U.K. in liberating the Iraqi people.
Basham: My personal position was in favor of the war. I think almost from Day One after the military success, it has been poorly managed and poorly executed, and, most regrettably, the focus has moved from national security issues and the war on terrorism to an emphasis upon democratization, which should never have been a rationale for going to war in Iraq and which I think is a well-intentioned but incredibly naïve policy in this country at this time.
Q: When should the U.S. begin pulling out of Iraq?
Gardiner: They should remain in the country for however many years that are necessary in order to defeat terror in the country.
Basham: As soon as it is feasible. The U.S. should pull out as soon as we are convinced that the new Iraqi government does not pose a threat to our security.
Q: Have U.S. policy-makers -- the White House -- learned the right lessons from the invasion and occupation of Iraq?
Gardiner: Yes, I think the invasion of Iraq has confirmed the military superiority of the United States and bodes well for future U.S. military operations. Certainly, elements of the postwar administration of Iraq could have been much better, but, yes, I do believe key lessons have been learned from the coalition's administration of Iraq.
Basham: It does not appear so. It appears U.S. policy-makers believe the rationale for invasion has been borne out by events since then, and I think in several areas that is not an accurate reading of what has happened. And the apparent desire to create new challenges in Iraq, primarily in terms of the political reconstruction of that country, is surprising, to put it mildly, given the enormous challenge facing any society that tries to create infant democracy over a very short period.
