Journal of International Service

February21st

7 Comments

The main Sunni party in Iraq, al-Iraqiyah or the Iraqi alliance, made news today by announcing a boycott of the parliamentary elections in March. A tug-of-war as of late has manifested its ugly head in Iraq, with the current Shia Iraqi government banning candidates with previous ties to the Baath party of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.

In the Wall Street Journal last week, Fred and Kimberley Kagan argued that Obama was losing Iraq to Iran, and that the recent governments debaathification efforts represented major Iranian influence on the Iraqi political process.

Today, at the Center for American Progress, Brian Katulis and Peter Juul argue that it was in fact the Bush Administration policy of preemptive war against Iraq, and to “empower the most pro-Iranian elements of Iraqi politics” which has led to the current quagmire.

What’s notable is that the Iraqi party which seems to lose most from the Maliki government’s decision to purge Sunni former Baathists from government is the Shia-led alliance of former Iraqi interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, arguably the most moderate of the parties running in the current election and one which has a strong record of opposing sectarianism, promoting civil liberties, and advocating a liberalization of the Iraqi economy.

I tend to side with Katulis and Juul’s argument over the Kagan’s. The fact of the matter is that the Obama Administration has tried as hard as possible to stop the barring of Sunni candidates in the elections, even as so far as to be called “intrusive” by Ahmad Chalabi, a Shia Iraqi politician. Yet, the simple fact remains that without outright direct American pressure – which would further spread the perception of illegitimacy on the election – nothing can be done to stop the current Shia Iran-backed hegemony on Iraqi politics.

The current quandary simply makes clear the problems of any sort of Wilsonian project of liberal democracy promotion, especially by force. Although American power took out Saddam Hussein, they also opened up Pandora’s Box of civil wars, ineffective governance, and the Iranification of Iraq. Furthermore, every plan to tinker with Iraqi democracy by the United States just makes things worse.

7 Comments

  • Comment by Tim Olsen — February 21, 2010 @ 5:55 pm

    Interesting points.

    While American interaction with Iraqi politics can have bad effects, if the Americans don’t apply pressure to end the exclusion of certain Sunni politicians from elections, is the election situation better or worse off? I would reckon worse.

  • Comment by Yelena Osipova — February 21, 2010 @ 11:00 pm

    Glad that you addressed the issue. I’m very curious to see what happens in a couple of weeks (that is, if there’s no further meddling – direct, or indirect – by the “coalition of the willing international community”). Yes, Iran’s role in the Iraqi elections is a big matter of concern, and is partially the reason for the increased anti-Iran rhetoric coming from the US and Israel over the past couple of weeks.
    I still do find it ironic, though, that sometimes democracy – the promotion of which was supposedly the reason for occupation in the first place – is not really what the US might want in the Middle East. Let’s see how it is all played out this time, yet again…

  • Comment by Emily Hersh — February 21, 2010 @ 11:06 pm

    This article reminds me of a comment made by my US Foreign Policy professor while she was teaching us Cold War history: The United States promotes democracy in other countries until they democratically elect communists. I think a similar thing has happened regarding democracy in the Middle East – the United States promotes democratic elections until they democratically elect Islamists, or in the case of Iraq, any political party that may have a relationship with a member of the “Axis of Evil”. If the United States really wants to promote democracy in Iraq, I think they need to really allow it to take its course, even if it means negative consequences for US interests in the region. In the short run this may have negative effects, but in the long run it will enforce US credibility both in the region and in the world as a whole.

  • Comment by Josh Kuyers — February 22, 2010 @ 3:24 am

    I think its less a losing of Iraq to Iran or an “empowering” of pro-Iranian Shia by the Bush Administration than the simple truth of Iraqi demographics and the nature of democratic governance. Iraq is roughly 60% Shia and 35% Sunni. The Sunni-minority was in control during Saddam’s regime a decidedly UN-democratic one.

    Now, however, Iraq is working toward Democracy, something promoted by both Bush & Obama Administrations, which for good or for bad means majority rule. Ideally there are minority protections and human rights so the Sunnis wouldn’t have to worry, but if Iraqi democracy is going to be effective everyone needs to participate. Boycotting elections because of an unpopular policy is setting a bad precedent for the future of Iraqi democracy. THAT is something to worry about!

  • Comment by Halima — February 23, 2010 @ 4:23 am

    Candidates should not be barred from running for elected office, even in a turbulent young democracy. The only way to establish peace in such a chaotic environment is to bring everyone to the official debates, regardless of their political pasts. Preventing those who are willing to use the political process to achieve their aims will only encourage others to try to achieve those aims through violence.

  • Comment by Zack — February 23, 2010 @ 6:36 pm

    Do the problems of Iraq discredit liberal democracy promotion in all circumstances? And is your recommendation, then, that the US not “tinker” anymore in Iraqi politics?

  • Comment by Omar Hossino — February 24, 2010 @ 5:24 am

    Thanks for all of the comments. I think Tim Olsen raises a very good question. Yet, I agree with Emily that credibility is important. A major problem with U.S. intervention – even to protect Iraqi Sunni parties who are being banned of participating in a simple democratic election by Ahmad Chalabi’s politically motivated judicial commission – is that it lessens credibility in Iraqi democracy which will simply be seen as an American backed puppet (and already is) throughout the Arab world. The more the U.S. intervenes in Iraq, the more both sides discredit the Iraqi state as illegitimate.

    I think Josh Kuyers is right that the majority of Iraq is Shiite, and it makes sense for Shiite candidates to outnumber Sunni Iraqis in the Iraqi government. He is also right that boycotting an election makes little sense – especially since you simply lose representation in government. Yet the essential question is the one that Halima raised – that of barring candidates from even running for elections. Why are the more activist Shiite parties so afraid of a free and fair election if they outnumber the Sunnis so much? Maybe because a major contender for the next election is (Shiite) Iyad Allawi’s party which includes many Sunnis and may actually succeed to achieve a government of national unity and reconciliation even if they don’t win an outright majority.

    The fact of the matter is that many Iraqi Shiites differ from Iranian backed Shiite parties and would not vote for the pro-Iran Shiite Iraqi parties – such as the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or Prime Minister Nour al-Maliki’s more moderate Dawa Party. Because Allawi’s party, and other Sunni parties are seen as a threat if they receive a substantial percentage of the vote in a free and fair election, Maliki and Chalabi seem content on basically stealing the election through banning viable Sunni candidates under the pretense of “stopping Baathism.”

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Powered by WP Hashcash

RSS