[Mb-civic] EDITORIAL Building on Iraq's Election

[Michael Butler]

 The New York Times
February 7, 2005
EDITORIAL
Building on Iraq's Election

Iraq's historic election left the country with a problem that everyone saw
coming but no one took serious steps to try to address. Instead of dealing
with the alienation of the Sunni community before the vote, leaders of the
Shiite majority, both religious and secular, insisted on holding the
election first and working to bring the minority Sunnis - who mostly stayed
away from the polls - in later.

Later has arrived. The Sunni boycott means that the Shiites and the Kurdish
parties will be significantly overrepresented in a new government. That
carries its own dangers. If either group overplays its already strong hand,
the vision of a peaceful, democratic and unified Iraq evoked by the election
will quickly shatter. That would poorly repay those voters for their bravery
and determination. It would also leave American troops fighting a prolonged,
and perhaps unwinnable, counterinsurgency war in the Sunni provinces. The
victorious parties must accept that winning back the Sunni provinces is a
political challenge they must take on themselves, not a military chore that
can be handed off to American troops.

There is some hopeful talk coming from Iraqi political leaders of all
communities as they float at least tentative ideas about possible
cooperation in writing Iraq's new constitution. This talk flows in part from
the arithmetic of constitutional ratification. A two-thirds majority vote
against the constitution in any 3 of Iraq's 18 provinces could block final
approval. That provision was originally designed to protect the three
Kurdish-majority provinces. But now it forces attention to the concerns of
the three Sunni-Arab-majority provinces as well. Those provinces are certain
to be severely underrepresented in the newly elected constitutional
assembly.

The final allocation of National Assembly seats won't be known for a while.
But one certain result is that Iraq's long-oppressed Shiite majority will
now wield decisive political power. We hope Iraq's Shiite leaders understand
the difference between leadership and dominance, and treat other groups
better than they were treated during the long decades of Sunni dictatorship.

The slate of Shiite religious parties that almost certainly drew the most
votes is unlikely to be able to rule alone, since it will take two-thirds of
the new assembly to choose a new government and adopt a new constitution.
The coalition partners available to them will include the secular Shiite
slate led by the interim prime minister, Ayad Allawi; the bloc formed by the
two main Kurdish parties; and a scattering of Sunnis and independents. The
wisest course would be to reach out widely, leaving as few groups as
possible feeling left out and embittered. In a country experimenting with
democracy for the first time, the concept of a loyal opposition hasn't had
enough time to take root.

For their part, Sunni leaders need to begin making concrete proposals about
how their voices and votes can be added to the constitutional debate. Sunnis
- not Shiites, Kurds or the American Embassy - should be deciding which
Sunnis to include and how. Once this happens, Shiites and Kurds should
respond generously, recognizing that anything that draws Sunnis away from
the insurgency and helps preserve a unified Iraq is in their interests as
well.

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search |
Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top