The Iraqi Test

The number one question following the Iraq election is, can they pull it off? The vote itself was as successful as one could ask given the social divisions, the Sunni insurgency and the lack of a democratic tradition. Even with traffic shut down for the election, attacks doubled the previous daily high at 300, five times the present daily average, which itself doubled from 25 last year, according to Defense Intelligence Agency chief, Lowell Jacoby. Even so, the turnout in the Shia and Kurd regions was impressive and a legitimate government has now been established. Still, whether Iraqis can pass the test of creating a viable government is still a very open question.

The best news was that no one group received an absolute majority of the popular vote and even the 51 percent majority of seats won in the National Assembly by the Shia United Alliance will not be enough for the most critical issues, many of which will require a two-thirds majority. Indeed, the Shiite coalition consists of several parties and personalities and will not always be united. An overwhelming Shia majority would have almost certainly led to one party rule and a constitution that could not have satisfied Kurds or Sunnis. Kurds were better organized and won 27 percent of the seats, almost one-third greater than their share of the population. The U.S.-backed, more moderate and secular Iraqi List party of acting Prime Minister Ayad Allawi received a disappointing 15 percent of the vote. The two sectarian parties control three-quarters of the seats and the three top parties compose 93 percent of the legislature. Sunnis, about the size of the Kurds, will hold only two percent of the seats due to their own boycott and intimidation by the insurgents.

The time to pass their test is short. The Assembly is supposed to be seated by March 1 and approve a president and two deputy presidents who will select a prime minister, cabinet and constitutional officers. A constitution is supposed to be crafted by August 15, which is to be subject to a national referendum on October 15 that must be approved by 16 of the 18 provinces. If it is approved, the first election under the constitution will take place on December 15, 2005. If defeated, an election on the same date would be held for a new assembly to redraft a constitution. Either the Kurds or Sunnis could reject the constitution since they control at least three provinces. Now that the Sunnis recognize that their participation would have denied the Shia even their small majority in the legislature if they had participated, they probably will vote in October.

Given the need for approval by all three major groups, there will be pressure for compromise. The difficulty is that the Shia want a single national government and the other two groups, although preferring to separate, might or would accept a federal system with great local autonomy as a minimum. The Kurds have the means to enforce an autonomy they have enjoyed even before Saddam Hussein was deposed. The situation in the key city of Kirkuk demonstrates how difficult these matters will be. In this case it is not just the Shia and Sunni. Turkomen and Christians (as well as Arab Shia and Sunni) in the strategic town dispute the election since tens of thousands of Kurds who formerly lived in the city were allowed to vote in the local election. Many of these had been forcibly driven out by Saddam and the Kurd parties were promising to unite the city within the autonomous Kurdish region. The other groups promised bloodshed if they tried to do so.

The Sunni are the principle source of the insurgency and are very unwilling to grant even the most necessary power to a Shiite central government. They have no strength in the Assembly to shape the constitution, although the other parties now realize that there must be some level of participation if they are not to block the constitution or go to civil war. An immediate test for them will be how the new government treats Sunni former Baathists. The leading candidate for premier, Ibrahaim Jafari, pledges to "purify" government of Baathists down to the local level and even moderate Sunni leaders have replied this will inflame their population. Even if something is worked out in the constitution with establishment Sunnis, it is not clear they can control their followers, much less the insurgents.

Beyond Iraq , federalism is very difficult to create and sustain anywhere. Switzerland is probably the only country with a real, functioning federalism in the world today. Canada's constitution, specifically created to be more decentralized than their neighbor's across the border, today is much more centralized. The United States clearly was federalist before the Civil War and much autonomy lasted through the early 20th Century. Yet, by the 1930s New Deal, the 1960s Great Society and the continuing Warren Court judicial revolution, the national government took charge. The fact that states win a few Supreme Court cases cannot be taken as contrary evidence since a national agency, the court, makes the binding decision. Of course, states still have more local power in the U.S. than in most world nations but, if its national government wants to win, regional interests will lose, probably not very reassuring to Kurds and Sunnis.

The difficulties facing Iraq even given the best intentions at the start are shown by the U.S. Civil War. Southerners and Northerners were clearly closer together than the three major groups in Iraq but they still went to war with each other, in a mutual slaughter greater than any until World War I. The Shia-Sunni conflict has ground on for a thousand years as each has viewed the other as schismatic, similar to Protestants and Catholics in 16th Century Europe. That divide took a century and a devastating 30-year war to resolve -- and boiled for another 300 years, and still simmers in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. Even an Iraqi moderate like Adel Abdul Mahdi says, "Religion for us is very mixed in our life -- prayers, marriages, death, its very mixed, even in our language. I think in the West there is a real distinction between religion and the secular. But that's not the case here." Not only will this make it difficult to divide power but the real dilemma is that there are at least two fundamentally different views of what that religion requires of the law.

The best news is that U.S. forces are being drawn down in anticipation of an Iraqi takeover of the military function or even a possible demand that American forces leave. Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul D. Wolfowitz recently told Congress that the decision had been made to trim troops by 15,000 beginning in March. While the administration has been loath to set a precise schedule and urges persistence, Lt. Gen. John Vines, commander of the 18th U.S. Airborne Corps, followed by stating, "I think at the end of a year we will see fewer U.S. forces because we're seeing Iraqi capability grow in numbers and effectiveness." American troops have been embedded in Iraqi units to quickly reach readiness so that the mission can be transferred to the locals, who have the advantage of understanding the culture.

Still, Iraqi restiveness over what they call "the occupation" is manifest. The most important Shiite, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, while recommending patience to his followers, is on record that he wants U.S. troops out and the Shia majority to govern. Only the smaller Allawi secular faction is firmly committed to a continuing American military presence, partially to balance the United Alliance. Abdul Salem Kubaissy, of the major Sunni group, the Association of Muslim Scholars, is unambiguous that there can be no legitimate government nor can the "blood of our sons and people" be spared until the occupation ends and Sunni interests met. The Kurds demand autonomy, no matter what, and this has led Turkey to threaten intervention if they seek independence. If all this was not enough, a near nuclear, more radical and much more numerous Shiite Iran sits next door with tens of thousands of agents already in Iraq.

If the Iraqis can navigate this regional minefield in less than a few centuries, they will make the American founders and the concert of Europe blush in shame. It will take a miracle. Miracles do happen but they are rare.

Donald Devine, Editor

Email the Editor