- The Washington Times - Saturday, August 14, 2004

Iraq stumbled badly earlier this month while taking its first steps along the treacherous course to democratic self-rule. American officials had unwisely described the success of a three-day political conference scheduled for the end of July as an essential step in Iraq’s political reconstruction.

The conference, stipulated under a law enacted by the former U.S. Provisional Authority, was “postponed” after the political support beams collapsed. The prospects for a successful transition to representative government during 2005 are now dimmer than ever.

This summer’s handover of political sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government depended on the conference establishing a National Council. This quasi-parliamentary body would oversee the interim government until the first national election in January 2005 chooses members of a transitional legislative assembly. The National Council would approve the government’s 2005 budget, could veto the interim government’s decisions, and would have authority to replace government ministers who resign or die in office.

This sounded like a sensible plan to inject a modicum of public input and oversight, however indirect, into the embryonic stages of Iraq’s Western-style political reconstruction. However, the recent machinations over the nature and make-up of the National Council clearly illustrate the enormous political hurdles between a liberated Iraq and a stable and sustainable democratic political system.

Unfortunately, what sounds eminently attainable to Western ears usually proves impossible in a society as unprepared for democratic decisionmaking as contemporary Iraq. In a formula devised by the United Nations, the conference was to select 100 Iraqis to form the National Council. These 100 members were to be drawn from the 1,000 conference delegates, themselves chosen in caucus-style elections held throughout Iraq’s 18 provinces. Exactly how the conference would select the delegates was never made clear.

Several obstacles immediately came into view. First, some important religious and nationalist leaders and groups simply boycotted the process. Many important figures in contemporary Iraqi politics, each commanding the loyalty of significant numbers of Iraqis, unambiguously dismissed the process. These groups view the National Council as yet another instrument of American occupation. Secretary of State Colin Powell’s comment that the conference would constitute a “stamp of approval” to the interim government only hardened this view.

Among the participating groups, logistical chaos, physical intimidation and political bickering characterized the delegate selection process. In many areas, the caucus system broke down, as the participants were unable even to agree on the process by which conference delegates should be chosen. In some caucuses, political victory stemmed from an ability to marshal physical rather than intellectual ammunition.

Clearly, both the Bush administration and the U.S.-chosen interim government remain apprehensive about matching democratic rhetoric with democratic action. Forty-four percent of the conference delegates were not chosen along democratic lines at all. Instead, they were appointed as representatives of favored religious, political, and tribal groups.

The conference was scheduled to convene with no representation from Sunni religious parties supported in the politically volatile “Sunni triangle” north and west of Baghdad. The old Governing Council’s members and supporters were heavily represented, especially former exiles whose political credibility is particularly low. Twenty-two of the 100 Council seats were held by former Governing Council members.

Many objected to the Kurds being guaranteed 25 percent of the delegates, though the Kurds number less than 1 in 7 Iraqis. Women were guaranteed 1 in 4 Council seats.

The quotas reflect a belated U.S. recognition that hostility to both Kurdish and female political participation permeates Iraqi society and constitutes a serious barrier to self-rule.

Both U.S. and Iraqi officials said a delayed conference would damage the credibility of the political transition. They were right. The conference fiasco resulted from the Bush administration, for the umpteenth time over the past 15 months, having raised expectations too high for Iraq’s political culture. President Bush’s re-election campaign must now live with the embarrassment of yet another self-inflicted wound suffered as a consequence of idealistic theories holding sway over hardheaded realism.

Patrick Basham, senior fellow in the Center for Representative Government at the Cato Institute (www.cato.org), is author of “Can Iraq Be Democratic?”

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times is switching its third-party commenting system from Disqus to Spot.IM. You will need to either create an account with Spot.im or if you wish to use your Disqus account look under the Conversation for the link "Have a Disqus Account?". Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide