Wonderful are the cleansing waters of democracy. More than half Iraq's electorate appear to have turned out in yesterday's election. The election was initially opposed by the Americans but insisted upon by the Shias. It could have taken place 18 months ago - and perhaps saved tens of thousands of lives. But taken place it has. Love the war or hate the war, no one can object to an election. It is a ray of sunshine over a miserable horizon. Only a pessimist could find serious fault in the past weekend's events, which undoubtedly exceeded expectations. At last some good news out of Iraq. So thank God, or Allah, for the elections.
The election itself has been partial, insecure, terrorised, unmonitored and presided over by a foreign power. But like elections in Afghanistan or Russia or South Africa or Ukraine it is a sacred ritual in the pantheon of freedom. Iraqis can be seen leaving their homes, going to schools, reading notices and voting, in defiance of terrorist threats. They are doing something normal, at last. If reporters must cover the story from behind barbed wire in compounds, so be it. The people speak and power must, however briefly, listen. A flame of legitimacy flickers to life. Whatever happens next, a contested election stands to the credit of any regime.
But what does happen next? The invasion of Iraq will, like that of Kosovo, have reallocated power from an oppressive minority to an oppressed majority within designated boundaries. What difference the Iraq elections will make in reality is less certain. The past two years have seen two supposed hand-overs of legitimacy to Iraqi institutions, also with much flag-waving and declarations of independence and freedom. Neither has had the slightest effect on internal peace or security. The election of a new government is still awaited from the new assembly. It is possible that the old government of Iyad Allawi will remain in office in a new guise, or that the SCIRI group of Shia religious leaders will be the power behind it. Either way its legitimacy in the eyes of most Iraqis will depend on its ability to replace American and British military support with local security.
That security, embracing police and internal armed forces, must be unshakeably loyal to the new regime. This means amalgamating what exists already with the Badr and other religious militias waiting in the wings, and with the al-Sadr group of militants whom al-Sistani impressively silenced last autumn. This seems most improbable unless the Americans completely depart the scene - either to barracks or out of the country altogether. But that will only secure the sovereignty of the new authority over the Shia parts of the country, with the Kurds continuing to enjoy de facto autonomy to the north.
At issue will be the reaction of the Sunni areas. Here the election will tell Iraqis what they know already, that there are more Shias than Sunnis. The overwhelming question is who, after the election, can achieve some sort of accommodation between majority and minority sufficient to avert the civil war which the Americans have conspicuously failed to stop. What American firepower cannot contain it is unlikely that Shia militias will repress.
The confrontation with the Sunni warlords north of Baghdad will be a trial of strength. Whether it is resolved through murderous bloodshed or de facto partition remains to be seen. What is sure is the presence of Americans in this theatre has exacerbated tension. And that is before battle is joined over the contested territory near the Kurdish border, round Mosul and Kirkuk. Here Saddam's population shifts and oil grabs remain unresolved, even after two years of supposed coalition negotiation. Many observers think the battle for oil-rich Kirkuk will be the bloodiest of any civil war.
Other trials of strength will be over the role of the church in secular affairs, which if SCIRI wins will be substantive if not overwhelming. It will be over the closeness of Shia Iraq to Iran. It will be over land tenure in areas of Baghdad seized by Sunnis under Saddam and which Shias want back. It will be over the sovereignty of cities in the Sunni triangle. It will be over the relations with Iran to the east and Syria and Jordan to the west.
In two years of nation-building the Americans and British have failed to answer any of these questions - indeed they have made answering them more difficult. They have further impoverished what was, before sanctions, one of the most prosperous states in the region. They have replaced a dictatorship with anarchy. There is no guarantee that another free election will be held and no guarantee that some new strong man will not soon emerge from the undergrowth of Mesopotamian politics. Almost nothing good has come from this wretched adventure.
But we have a milestone in the road. The best hope now is that the invaders can feel able to withdraw and leave the citizens of Iraq to decide their future on their own. Their country was first raped by Saddam Hussein and has been devastasted by war and occupation. Even today its oil wealth is being stolen by the Americans - according to auditors in Washington no less - and the Kurdish minority is being encouraged to de facto partition.
Continued occupation is a problem not a solution. The parallel with Lebanon in the 1980s is vivid, a land wrecked by outside intervention and rescued only when the interveners went home. Iraqis have now spoken. Those they have elected must bear the burden of democratic rule. We have given them an election, that is all. Now we should leave and let them cope with the consequences. We can only make that coping more painful by pretending to help.
This was not a vote for Bush, it was a vote by the Shia for a Shia fundamentalist religious dictatorship and against the occupation. Just as the American occupation has been a catalyst for civil chaos, this mock-democracy will be the catalyst for ethnic and tribal conflict in the region for decades to come. Name and address withheld
Whatever the results of the elections, it remains to be seen whether the Shias will adopt true democracy by accommodating and addressing the views and concerns of the minorities. The ascendance of the Shias to power also poses an interesting question: what will the Americans do if the new regime decides to emulate Iranian-style clerical administration? Will they continue to bomb the Iraqis until they adopt American-style democracy? Ahmed Kemo Ceesay, London
