IRAQI DEMOCRACY?

President George W. Bush has set the creation of democracy in Iraq as the test for American success in the region. It is an incredibly high standard. More important, it conflicts with what his own Coalition leaders are aiming to achieve on the ground.

Ambassador L. Paul Bremer recently won White House approval for his plan for the future governance of Iraq. It will immediately transfer American occupation authority to the locals after the Iraqi Governing Council creates a temporary set of "Basic Laws" and town hall and regional caucus elections are held to select delegates who will choose a provisional government. The earlier plan to devise a permanent constitution before ending the U.S. occupation was changed because the American-created Council did not have the necessary legitimacy to resolve the issues separating the different regional interests. While the same problems must be faced in creating the Basic Laws and in holding the earlier elections, the solution at least provides a means to avoid an indefinite morass as the factions delay matters so as to improve their own bargaining positions. But the solution can hardly be considered democratic.

Citing President Bush in rejecting the indirect system of elections, the most influential voice in the 65 percent majority Shi'a community, the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, said caucuses were not democratic as the president promised the elections would be. Representing a group that is an absolute majority of the Iraq population, democracy to him means that the Shi'a will be in control and can set the constitution and laws to reflect their own image of Islam. On my recent trip to Iraq, I met the most reasonable Shiite cleric in the country, Sayyid Farkad Quizwini, who proposed a remarkably moderate program but would not consider any autonomy for Kurds or Sunnis, who he said must abide by the decisions of the "democratic" majority-which, of course, is Shi'a.

The unconditional bottom line of the pre-war U.S.-allied Kurd factions is regional autonomy. The non-Arab Kurds of the North are divided into two often-warring parties that are only cooperating now because both are determined to first remove the Arabs from their midst and rule themselves through their own local leaders. Most of the Arab Sunni in the West-center of the country, representing only a quarter of the population, know that majority rule means their moral vision will not be enshrined in Iraqi law. That fear for their way of life is why the Sunni triangle and Baghdad are up in arms already. This will only magnify if the Shiites win an absolute majority of governmental power.

Ambassador Bremer told us the one essential constitutional provision is federalism, to give some voice and power to minorities. But he admitted he could not force this solution into the constitution and the Basic Law apparently will only assert that Iraq should "move toward" federalism and will leave open the issues of Islamic moral codes and direct majority rule. Even in the American constitutional convention, the large states of New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia wanted direct majority rule, leading to fear from the small states for the survival of their religious and civic ways of life. For a while it was a touch and go even there but the non-majoritarians finally prevailed and created a divided and federal system. In his reflections afterwards, the "father of the Constitution," James Madison, wrote that this was key since all previous systems built on direct democracy had failed because they could not protect minority interests.

Obviously, the problems in Iraq are much greater, for the centuries-old divisions of the nation run much deeper. Even the Arab Shiites in the South are split into the Iran-rooted Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the Dawa Islamiyah, the Muqtada Sadr radical faction, its Ali Sistani-led opposition, the London-based Khoei Foundation and numerous mullahs and local sheiks. Area by area, as we traveled around-even with the violence-it appeared just conceivable that each one individually might establish order. But when one mixes these inflammable regional, ethnic and religious rivalries, it will ignite as surely as any other unstable chemical reaction forced into a single compound. To create a nationwide democracy from this artificial nation carved in London during the zenith of colonialism would truly take forever.

That is why the present President George W. Bush's father rejected going to Baghdad and occupying Iraq in the first Gulf War. As George H.W. Bush said in his memoir: "Had we gone the invasion route [to Baghdad], the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different-and perhaps barren-outcome." Of course, his son is aware of the problem and has created a Middle East Partnership Institute under the leadership of Vice President Cheney's daughter Elizabeth. Yet, as Marina S. Ottaway of the Carnegie Institute's Democracy Project says, "It is just "warming up the same democracy projects that have not had any impact in the Middle East in the past." In fact, the U.S. keeps supporting undemocratic allies in the region because it is in our interests and that sends a much stronger signal about democracy to Arabs than a $30 million democracy project.

The good news is that the end of the U.S. occupation is in sight and the military and civilian leaders are moving enthusiastically and rationally to implement the plan. President Bush has already announced that the number of troops will be reduced from 132,000 to 100,000 by April 2004. The scattered forces necessary during the interim are being consolidated in an operation "local standoff" so that they will become less vulnerable to attack, especially in Baghdad, after the Iraqis take control. One senior officer predicted that the number of fixed locations would be down to a handful by April in Baghdad and to a few score in the rest of the country. He flatly said the occupation would be over by the end of 2005, with the remaining coalition troops left in isolated and well-defended forts. The turnover to local councils and police is already in advanced stages and the Iraqi army is being formed on an expedited basis.

But the political dangers remain. The Shi'a hear all of the glib U.S. talk about democracy and think that means that they will be in charge and be able to do whatever they want. The 2003 World Values Study showed that 60 percent of Arabs worldwide said democracy is "the best form of government." Among the American people, only a minority said democracy is best. The president and his administration need to become as wise as their own people. It would not be a bad idea for them to re-read the Founders' "Federalist Papers" to refresh their memory about the dangers of majoritarian democracy and for them to start talking about the rule of law, separation of powers and federalism. This combination worked for us and is the only possible solution for the Iraqis that will not lead to majority authoritarianism and harm to American's worldwide interests.