Bush claims 'resounding success' in Iraq elections!

Iraqis gather along a pavement near wall decorated with various posters of Shiite Muslim Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in central Baghdad 03 February 2005. The likely electoral victory by a Shiite alliance, backed by Sistani in Iraq has raised the sensitive issue of religious interference in state affairs, despite attempts by the front-running ticket to quell secular fears. PHOTO: AFP

There were 44 standing ovations during one-hour State of Union speech --something similar that I, as Bangladesh Ambassador, used to see in Romanian parliament whenever late President Ceaucescu delivered his address on his vision of democracy in Romania. However, here the difference is that President Bush spoke of democracy in other countries and not in his own where election wining manoeuvres like those in Florida, Ohio etc are just taken as normal in the democratic practice. Any way, President Bush totally changed his position from WMD in Iraq for which he went for the invasion to "democracy" that is a catch-word and passion for every one in the United States and elsewhere.

Yes, it was a "resounding success" as many of two ethnic groups of people went to the polling stations to cast their votes under the "unprecedented" military protection of the occupation forces, of course, supported by the newly established Iraqi forces too. But the process has divided Iraq ethnically as one ethnic group boycotted the election. However, only going to the polling station to vote as a mark of revenge against Saddam's ill treatment to the majority Shia population does not mean democracy has been established in Iraq..

Democracy means participation of all citizens in the democratic process without intimidation and outside interference to choose their representatives to run the government 'of the people and for the people'. Here one large community -- Sunnies -- has been left out of the election process. Though they had legitimate concern over holding election under occupation forces, they finally wanted to participate in the election but asked for time of some six months to sort out the security situation. Undoubtedly it was not an appropriate security situation to hold any credible election where all could participate. This was proved by the fact that about 40 people have been killed during the election day and the British C-130 was brought down apparently by the 'insurgents' fire killing 10 British troops. This was certainly not the appropriate environment to hold the election. But it was forced on the population and some who were oppressed by Saddam joined the process despite the risk involved. The nation paid extremely heavy price to achieve Bush's "resounding success" in terms of bringing disgruntled groups of Iraqis to the polling stations.

Only pushing ballot papers into the ballot boxes under bullets and bombs without even knowing who they are voting for does not mean democracy. Then Saddam's elections also meant democracy; there they at least knew who they were voting for. Iraqis had been going through some form of election process for decades. Only difference was that they had only one choice -- who was a devout nationalist and a man of the soil. This time they had many choices but most of them are really foreigners (expatriates) to the Iraqis with no real allegiance to Iraq. Any serious problem, they would fly out to their own destinations abroad. Earlier the brutal dictator killed Iraqis who opposed him but never dishonored them. This time the Iraqis who opposed occupation forces were not only killed (present estimate is 100,000 Iraqis were killed by the occupation forces), they were hugely dishonoured that created worldwide uproar.

In addition, because of the UN sanction for over a decade Iraq reportedly lost a generation (million children died). Earlier it was an Iraqi dictatorship, this time it's a remote control dictatorship and undoubtedly more brutal as, apart from slaughter of numerous Iraqis, the homes and cities (Fallujah, Somara etc) were reduced to rubles. Under Saddam, before UN sanction, Iraqis had practically no problem with security, food, electricity, gas etc and life used to be normal, this time Iraq stands virtually devastated -- no security, no food, no electricity, no gas etc. Saddam kept Shias, Sunnies, Kurds together to make one sovereign Iraq, but today Iraq stands ethnically divided -- may even fall apart any time, -- a "resounding success" indeed!

Occupation of some sort could have been established by America even without invasion. Huge amount of money -- billions of dollars -- has been spent for the invasion, and more would be spent in the days ahead to fix up the devastation inflicted by the occupation army.. But even half the amount would not have been needed to topple Saddam if Bush Administration had followed a different path with the help of Iraqi people. But WMD case had to be created for the purpose of invasion which was planned some months ago (ref Bob Woodward's "Plan of Action") apparently with the purpose of making Israel safe in the region for all time to come. (ref Sharon's eight visits within a couple of months to the White House before invasion and practically none after the invasion). CIA was made the scapegoat as it went for bad and selfish advice /intelligence of Alawi-Chalabi and company on WMD which never existed and in the process CIA lost its unique power because of the consequent reorganisation of the US Intelligence apparatus.

Undoubtedly, interim PM Alawi wanted to have the election as he knew that he will get full security cover from the occupation forces and he could have his and his groups' positions established. This election is likely to establish an expatriate government in Iraq as Alawi and many of the contestants are expatriates who returned after some 25-30 years of their stay abroad unless the local Shia leader Sistani's group captures a large number of votes which cannot be ruled out. It was an unusual election where the names of the contestants were divulged only in the night before election. So, electorates did not even know the names of the candidates let alone see them in any election campaign and learn about their plans and programmes for the country. There were no foreign election observers; only the media observed the election and gave their part of the story. Such an election would have no validity in any other country. But here the case is special and that is why the west and part of Arab world leadership saw it as a first step in the democratic process.

Already the Sunni clerics gave a declaration that the election was illegal as a large community did not participate in it. The other interesting thing is that a Sunni Governor Abdullah Al- Jabouri and his group formally filled in the papers to join the election, but his and his group's names did not appear in the final list of candidates. The Election Commission later said it was a simple mistake. There is no doubt that this was done deliberately. However, some reports already said the turn out was very low. Abu Musa Al Zarqavi also vowed to continue their fight against occupation. Thus the situation in Iraq seems very gloomy. However, in order to show higher turnout, there could be foul play in the form of filling up the ballot boxes with extra ballot papers while these are being transported to the central location in Baghdad for counting.

But all said and done, one has to see the reality too. America will never accept defeat in Iraq though they had done so in Vietnam. Here in the M-E the stake is much higher because of the presence of Israel and the great influence of the Jewish community in the United States. Indeed, Jewish influence ultimately determines the fate of US politics. May be, many Americans do not like this but it's again the reality. Israeli-Palestinian fight for over 50 years and successive American administrations' handling of the issue confirms superpower's total bias in favour of Israel. So America is likely to fight to the last. The situation in the M-E is being further complicated by the Iran factor and its nuclear ambition. New Secretary of State Dr. Rice said February 4 that 'the plan to attack Iran is simply not on the agenda at this point in time'. The words -- not on the agenda at this point in time -- are very significant. This means the option remains open. This is how Iraq attack was also built up. So Iran would obviously to take this very seriously.

Here America may wait to take Britain, France and Germany on board as these EU countries are very likely to fail in ultimately stopping Iran to go nuclear. But it is very doubtful whether France and Germany would ever join America to attack Iran and put the world upside down. Britain's case is somewhat uncertain if Blair continues to remain at the helm of affairs though British people are expected to remain against any such attack.. Keeping such a terribly uncertain scenario in view, the Sunnies might find it appropriate to respond to the offer of national reconciliation and join the Shias and Kurds to work out an acceptable constitution that could stop further slaughter of innocent Iraqis. In case, an acceptable agreement is found, a joint effort could be made to ask the American forces to leave Iraq though American presence in some form would continue which cannot be avoided.

Muslehuddin Ahmad is a former Secretary and Ambassador.