John Kampfner :: author, broadcaster & commentator

Elections Must Be Way Ahead for Iraqis
Daily Express, 31st January 2005

Watching the lines of Iraqis queuing to vote yesterday, I could not help feeling admiration. These people were risking their lives for their first proper exercise in democracy. Land borders had been sealed. The airport was closed. Roads were blockaded. Soldiers patrolled. The country was as tense as it has ever been, and yet they were not prepared to stay at home and cower.

I am one of those who argued strongly that the war was a terrible mistake. I still think that, and many of the events that have taken place since American and British forces invaded Iraq have reinforced my view. So surely there is a contradiction here? No, and this is why.

Nobody who has enjoyed the fruits of a free society should deny them to another. Each society is different, but the values set out in the original United Nations charter of democracy, free speech and human rights are universal.

The issue at stake is how you achieve them, and by defying the UN in 2003, by declaring that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, which it did not, and by announcing that it posed a threat to the rest of the world, which it did not, George Bush and Tony Blair set back the very cause of international law they claimed to be championing.

After smashing an army that barely existed, the occupying forces then provided almost a text book example of how not to run a country. Within weeks, Iraq had become a hotbed of international terrorism. The excesses of the American at Abu Ghraib jail, and allegedly by British soldiers too, only added to a feeling of humiliation and resentment.

And yet there is absolutely no moral equivalence between the mistakes of the US and British government over the past two years and the campaign of terror launched by the various gangs in Iraq, particularly the one led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The insurgents are not fighting a just war. Zarqawi, who is responsible for car bombings, abductions and beheadings, issued a chilling call to arms shortly before election day declaring that anyone who took part, who even voted, would be punished for their heresy.

To stand for election was to dice with death. Candidates were unable to appear in public. Election workers were driven into hiding. Foreign monitors were forced to observe the elections from another country. To vote was similarly dangerous, but even though the turnout figure remains uncertain, it seems that a majority of the 14 million eligible Iraqis chose to stand up to these threats.

They should be congratulated for doing so, especially in a country like ours where we have become so sceptical about politics that we regard abstentions at elections as something to be proud of.

This first step in the tortuous road to a decent life in Iraq appears to have succeeded. There will be many further tests ahead. Within a few weeks a Transitional National Assembly will be formed. Its job will be to appoint a president and a prime minister. It will then have to draft a new constitution and by October hold a referendum on that constitution.

The first big problem will be in establishing the assembly as an institution for all the people. The minority Sunni population, which under Saddam Hussein held sway over the majority Shi’ites, has been vocal in denouncing the election. Turnout among this group is likely to be considerably lower, raising questions about the legitimacy of the new government.

Some like Zarqawi have a vested interested in fomenting civil war. Ironcally neighbouring Iran, now top of the Bush administration’s latest axis of evil, will have an important role in preventing a break-up of the country and ensuring that the Shi’ite majority respects the rights of the minorities.

Linked with this is the future of the American and British forces. Both Washington and London now talk about “exit strategies”. They may well be asked to get out more quickly than they would like. A multinational UN force should be invited in to help the Iraqis develop their own security forces. They should have been involved at a much earlier stage, but Bush vetoed the idea.

The last time Bush had anything to celebrate in Iraq was the day Saddam Hussein was pulled out of his hideout in December 2003. The American triumphalism then was as irksome as it was counter-productive. They would be well advised to avoid it this time around, but I fear we will hear plenty of it in coming days. Blair has in recent months become more circumspect, and he is right to have toned down the rhetoric.

If these elections mark a turning point, if a semblance of stability and normality can be achieved in Iraq, it will be a victory for the people themselves, who have endured so much from all sides. These elections do not in any way vindicate the war. Rather they suggest that even out of bad decisions, positive outcomes can emerge.

This article first appeared in the Daily Express and may not be reproduced without permission.