AT AL-HEWAR CENTER
State Department Spokesman Explores
Implications of Iraqi Elections
Al-Hewar/The Arab-American Dialogue Winter/Spring 2005
O
n February 9, Al-Hewar Center in metro Washington, D.C. hosted a conversation with Mr. Adam Ereli, Deputy Spokesman of the U.S. State Department, about “The Iraqi Elections: A U.S. State Department Perspective.” The event was introduced and moderated by Mr. Mazhar Samman.
Ereli called the recent election in Iraq an “historic event” that people generations from now will still be talking about and celebrating for the “important transition that it represents.” He reviewed events leading up to the elections – from the prelude to the war, the fall of Baghdad, then the transfer of power to the Iraqi interim government in June 2004, and, ultimately, the elections taking place, all of which have astounded the world community, most of whom did not believe such things could happen.
“What we saw happen on January 31, 2005, were Iraqis making history themselves,” he said. He commended the Iraqi people for taking up the challenge and demonstrating the strength, courage, and conviction to make things they way they ought to be, rather than accepting what was. “That was the day people long enslaved broke free of their chains and determined their own future, by themselves, in the face of enormous difficulties and obstacles,” he stated.
The elections defied expectations, according to Ereli, for several reasons: (1) many expected that they would not take place at all or would be postponed due to security reasons, participation, and logistics; (2) the logistical success – ballots were distributed, personnel trained, etc. They met international standards for successful elections; (3) turnout was higher than expected – estimated at 60-70% of eligible voters; and (4) the relative lack of violence. Although there was some sporadic violence, it was not as great as anticipated, and there was a universal recognition that the Iraqi security forces displayed skill and effectiveness. They deserve a lot of respect from the people of Iraq and the international community, he said.
What comes next? It is important to recognize that this is an intermediary step, he said. It is really the beginning of a process designed to lead to something more permanent. There will be a transitional National Assembly, whose job will be to nominate a temporary government and write a permanent constitution. It is that constitution that is really going to define the path that Iraq takes. That constitutional process will produce a permanent government which will be elected in December 2005 if the timetable is met.
The transitional national will certainly will be largely Shia and Kurdish, but that does not mean minority groups won’t be represented or have influence, said Ereli. Statements made by all sides indicate that the Iraqis understand the need for inclusiveness and for not freezing out minorities. “It seems to me that the Shia, having been kept out of public affairs for so long, learned a lesson, and are not going to do the same thing to others,” he said. “I think that is a very positive indicator.”
Things to watch out for in the near future include who will participate in the constitutional drafting committee. The provisional administrative law decrees that a 2/3 vote against the constitution in three of the 18 provinces would mean that the constitution does not pass. Another question is what will happen to the Transitional Administrative Law, which was written and promulgated by the Coalition Provisional Authority with the approval of the Iraqi Governing Council at the time. There are some very important provisions, including, first and foremost, respect for the rights of minorities. The degree to which that is respected will be an important indicator.
Despite the success of the elections, the insurgency is very much a factor and will remain so for some time, said Ereli. No one has illusions that it is just going to fade away. Abu Musab Al-Zarkawi’s posted a statement on his website before the elections that democracy is evil and those who participate in it un-Islamic. The fact that such views were so roundly rejected by the voters on January 31 shows where the hearts of the Iraqis are, said Ereli. Although there was relatively less Sunni participation, it is not clear that the principle motivating factor was sympathy with the insurgency, but was rather attributable to fear or a lack of commitment to the democratic process set forth.
There are different elements in the insurgency, Ereli noted. One is a fanatical religious element. Another is a revisionist political element; i.e., the Ba’athists who want to bring back Saddam Hussein or take revenge on those who opposed him. But by and large what fuels the insurgency are people who are either a criminal element profiteering from the war, or desperate young people who need to provide for their families. The economics of the insurgency play on the deprivation that a lot of Iraqis are suffering. That is a huge focus of the reconstruction. Alleviating the deprivation, will help dissipate the strength of the insurgency over the long-term, he said.
What is less clear are the implications of these elections for the broader region. Given the elections in Afghanistan, the Palestinian Authority, and Iraq, President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have come to the conclusion that there is “a tide of freedom” sweeping the Middle East. “We need to harness this movement and channel it in a positive direction so that others can enjoy the same future and benefits that derive from participatory democracy and human freedom,” Ereli stressed. He concluded his presentation by asking the audience their opinion about whether this is really a “tide” of freedom… Is each case unique that depends on unique circumstances? What impact or influence on the region both in terms of societies and people as well as government will the events on Iraq have? His questions prompted a spirited discussion with the audience.
Al-Hewar/The Arab-American Dialogue Winter/Spring 2005