Iraq: Is democracy viable?

It is part of the tragedy that is the history of post-invasion Iraq that on the eve of the much-touted first democratic general election in decades, the prospect of peace and order in that country remain as hazy as a distant mirage in the desert air. As the past several weeks and days of rising violence have shown, far from being crushed, the pockets of resistance that are active in Iraq are not only as alive as ever, but seem to have grown and spread out to include zones that the allies had previously considered "safe," and all that in spite of the stepped up efforts by the American military and their cohorts to put an end to the months-long insurgency.

To keep up the pressure on the insurgents and ensure that the peace is kept as well as is at all possible not only during the voting but far beyond, the Americans are reportedly planning to maintain their current military presence in the country, including their 120,000 troops, through 2006. But in the meantime, only last Tuesday at least 11 Iraqi policemen were killed in a shootout between Iraqi soldiers and insurgents in Baghdad and a senior Iraqi judge was shot dead, not to speak of the 31 American servicemen who were killed when an American Marine helicopter crashed for undisclosed reasons while on a mission in the country.

Not to be discouraged by this loss of American lives, President Bush told the Dubai-based Al Arabiya television network that the helicopter accident was a reminder of the risk inherent in military operations. "We mourn the loss of lives. But I am convinced that we are doing the right thing by helping Iraq become a free country, because a free Iraq will have long-term effects in the world, and it will help the people of Iraq realize their dreams and aspirations and hopes," the president said. Clearly, what the American president envisaged is a general election in Iraq that forms part of his recently stated goal of "ending tyranny in our world."

The relevant question that begs to be asked, however, is how well Bush's -- or the American -- vision of a democratic world "free of tyranny" suits the Iraqi conception of what is right for them, their culture and their country. Considering the widespread resistance against the occupation forces after the American-led invasion, it seems reasonable enough to assume that little has changed in Iraq since thousands of Iraqis marched down the streets of Baghdad, carrying the slogan: "Saddam No, U.S. No, Islam Yes, Yes."

In other words, now as in those earlier days of occupation, even if the general election should proceed smoothly, difficulties can be expected to remain in the way of effective governance in the newly formed "democratic" Iraq. As some Indonesian observers have predicted, so long as the U.S. remains in charge of the overseeing the procedures -- which it is bound to do, given its military presence in the country -- the establishment of a true and stable democracy in Iraq will not be possible, or difficult to achieve to say the least.

It should be remembered that 60 percent of Iraqi's are Shia Muslims, led by clerics who would like to see a theocratic state established in their country, more or less after the model of the Islamic Republic of Iran -- an idea that Washington intensely opposes.

With the general election already at the doorstep, it is a bit late in the day at present to talk about the help of outsiders -- either a coalition of governments or organizations -- that can be relied on to have nothing but the interests of the Iraqi people at heart. All that we can say is that we sincerely hope that all these gloomy predictions will be proven wrong and that, through the election, democracy will at least be given a reasonable chance to flourish in that great and ancient land.