The evolving unwieldy Iraqi democracy

Columnist Ehsan Ahrari says that the steps towards democratisation in Iraq are in a mess.

The United States does not want any outside interference in Iraq.  Of course, that message was aimed at Iran from a country that has written a new chapter on exerting “outside interference.” Retired Lieutenant General Jay Garner, the Ex US administrator of Iraq, opined that the anti-American demonstrations are influenced by Iran.  President George W. Bush’s spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said, “We have made clear to Iran we oppose any outside interference.” Of course that does not include the United States!

 Let’s view the US objections from the perspectives of the worst case and best-case scenarios.  The worst-case scenario first.  Assuming that Iran is influencing the Shia population to assert its preference to have an Islamic state, such an alleged activity is still in harmony with the democratic principles. In that process, no one is depriving the Iraqis of making up their own minds about it. If they were to choose an Islamic form of government, it is still in perfect agreement with a democratic choice.  If the major objective of the United States in post-Saddam Iraq were to establish democracy, that purpose would still be fulfilled. What is the problem?  Considering the fact that the Shias formulate 60-65 percent of the Iraqi population, they are likely to opt for an Islamic state a la Iran.  Islam is an integral and dominant aspect of their heritage.  Perhaps the Iraqi Shias have some romantic notion regarding the nature of the government in their neighbouring state.  But it is still their choice to opt for it and to find out whether that is, indeed, for them.

As a neighbour of Iraq, Iran has suffered tremendously during the tyranny of Saddam Hussein.  Why should it not try to ensure that no hostile government comes to power in Iraq?  As long as Iran’s exercise of such influence does not violate the sacred rights of all Iraqis to choose their preferred form of government, it is a legitimate activity stemming from a genuine security concern.

The United States’ problem is that it prefers to implement secular democracy in Iraq, no matter how alien that notion might appear to be for those who have to live under it.  The Bush administration’s desire to see Iraq become a democracy is desirable, but not its insistence that it should become a secular democracy.  Not right now.  Iraq has to learn to crawl before it can be expected to walk or to run.

The best-case scenario is that Iran keeps its hands off of Iraqi affairs. Still, there is no way the majority of the Shias will not want to emulate the Iranian example of adopting an Islamic democracy. I know, the very phrase “Islamic democracy” makes a lot of people smirk in the West, or maybe even in the East.  But compared to the near-totalitarian rule of Mohammad Reza, Iran is, indeed, a democracy.  So, under either scenario, the emergence of Iraq as a democracy is guaranteed. But such a potential development is not acceptable to the neoconservatives in Washington. Speaking of neoconservatives, one of their dons – Donald Rumsfeld – made an interesting statement on April 24, 2003.  He said, “If you’re suggesting how we would feel about an Iranian-type government with a few clerics running everything in the country, the answer is: That isn’t going to happen.’’ There, you have it.  Iraq will be a democracy, but only the type of democracy that is acceptable to the United States. Nothing less!

A nameless government official is reported to have admitted to Robin Wright of the Los Angeles Times, “Many in the Pentagon have been surprised that (Ahmad) Chalabi’s claim the Shiites would identify with him as a natural Shiite leader hasn’t yet been proven.  His (Chalabi’s) description of the Shiites and their beliefs and interests was way off and misled them about what the Shiites want.”

Now, a whole slew of instant specialists on the Shias of Iraq in Washington are opining about the differences between the Akbari and Usuli Shias.  The former, we are told, are in support of secularism “because of their strong Arab nationalist traditions,” while the latter “believe in a comprehensive religious and political system led by God’s representative on Earth, reflecting the thinking of key Iranian leaders with whom this faction is linked.” Akbari Shias are in the majority of the Shia population.

Let us clearly understand one point.  The preceding arguable textbook descriptions of different Shia sects do not necessarily reflect the ground realities and preferences of those groups today.  Shias of that country, after being brutalized by Saddam for decades, taste freedom today. They will determine their ultimate path of government soon enough.

As a democratic state, Iraq will manifest an independent foreign policy behaviour that may not be too friendly toward the United States.  It can be argued that whatever euphoria currently prevails toward America in Iraq these days is ephemeral.  But, at the same time, Iraq is most likely to be quite friendly toward Iran.  It has been suggested that the ancient Persian and Arab rivalry will resurface between the two neighbours before too long. Even then, the type of animosity that had prevailed between Baghdad and Tehran during the Saddam years may not resurge, unless another megalomeniacal leader emerges in either of those countries.  But as an entity that will reflect the aspirations of the Shias, the future Iraqi government cannot be unfriendly toward Iran, a reality that will be resented by Washington. 

In this context, I am reminded of a statement that Georgi Arbatov – a major foreign policy figure of the Soviet Union during the late 1980s, and father of one of Russia’s well-known legislators, Alexi Arbatov-used to make in the waning days of the Soviet Union.  He used to say, we would do the worst favour to you (the United States) by becoming just like you and by depriving you of our enmity. So, by becoming a democracy – and especially an Islamic democracy to boot-Iraq will do the U.S. the worst favour.

The invasion of Iraq and dismantling of Saddam’s dilapidated military machine was easier than dealing with a society that is “reinventing” itself. The United States is about to find out in the coming months how unwieldy democracy is likely to be in Iraq. Its immediate manifestations are already on the rise in the form of growing demands that the Americans get out of their country.  As one Iraqi is reported to have said to an American soldier: “Thanks for getting rid of Saddam. Please go home now!”

About the Author

Ehsan Ahrari, PhD is an Independent Strategic Analyst based in Alexandria, VA, USA.  He has written for Jane’s Intelligence Review, Far Eastern Economic Review. His columns regularly appear in Asia Times. He specialises in strategic affairs of Middle East, nuclear and missile proliferation and force modernisation in Southern Asia (China, India and Pakistan) and Central Asia.