Melissa Overbeck
Perspectives Editor
When then-Secretary of State Colin Powell declared that the November Ukrainian elections were fraudulent, he helped set off a chain of events that ended in a re-vote and the election of a new, pro-western president. The Secretary’s decision to speak out against the conduct in that election, while well-received by pro-western Ukrainians, was viewed by some as meddling in the internal affairs of another country.
Now, with the Iraqi elections nearing, Powell’s comments have opened the door to international criticism of those elections that could have similar results on the fledgling state.
With security in many of the state’s regions still shaky, there has been discussion of postponing the election until the U.S. forces can guarantee the safety of Iraqis going to the polls. Yet this sort of action from the United States would give insurgents exactly what they want.
Postponement of the elections would demonstrate to the insurgents that attacks can successfully hinder United States democratization efforts. Rather than caving in to demands, the United States must show insurgents that democracy will proceed with or without them.
The elections are particularly important in starting Iraq on the path to framing its own future. The leaders selected will form a representative national assembly and will be charged with creating the new Iraqi constitution. The creation of this document will demonstrate that, although slow, progress is being made. With democratically elected leaders in place, the free state of Iraq will have a more domestic face. It will no longer be the United States forcing its will on the Iraqi people through leaders of its choosing, but rather a government of Iraqis working for and at the will of the Iraqi people.
Holding the elections on time also maintains the United States’ credibility with the Iraqi people. The United States has said since going to war in 2003 that it is not there to occupy but to liberate. Postponing the elections would undermine this claim and damage the United States’ ability to effect change.
The time immediately following the elections will be crucial, as the new leaders will have to win the confidence of the Iraqi people as well as the rest of the world. Although Powell invited criticism when he called the Ukrainian elections fraudulent, it is essential to the success of these elections that the world community resist the temptation to respond in kind by raising doubts concerning the election’s validity. Criticism would not only undermine the establishment of democracy in Iraq, it should also be avoided because the situation in Iraq completely differs from that of Ukraine.
Ukraine has an established voting system that was ignored in the recent election. Votes that were cast were not counted and pens in some voting booths were filled with disappearing ink. For Iraq, these elections are a historic first. There is no precedent being willfully ignored. Rather, the elections, although wrought with difficulties, will presumably be carried out with no institutional tricks or fraudulent practices.
With the current instability in the country and the fact that voting is a new procedure there, problems are inevitable. However, although rocky, this process is the only hope of stability for the country, and thus must proceed.
In attempting to protect democratic elections in Ukraine, Powell may have paved the way for criticism from other countries, but the world community must stand by and support the efforts in Iraq toward peace and stability.
The Iraqi elections are important, as they represent a milestone in the process of democratization but, as can be seen from the Ukrainian experience, international support of the newly elected government will be instrumental in ensuring the success of that state. In this crucial time, the United States must push ahead with Iraqi elections and the world must stand behind the results.
1-27-2005