Six months back the beleaguered America came to the conclusion that the only honourable exit strategy to extricate itself from the quagmire and evacuate was to hand over the bleeding country back to the Iraqis. And the best way to do it was to hold a general election. The date was fixed for end of January 2005. Surprisingly the people did not accept it as a benefaction. The Sunni insurgents looked upon it as a device to deprive them of power permanently.
They not only decided to boycott the elections en-bloc but to block it altogether by re-doubled terrorism to dissuade those in favour. Some hot-headed Shias headed by the firebrand Muqtada Al-Sadr also announced their opposition insisting on immediate vacation of occupation but Muqtada has been neutralised.
The interim Iraqi government led by Allawi refused to back down maintaining that they were capable of confronting the rebels by strict security measures along with political negotiations to win over the non extremist Sunni groups. As the D-day approaches it seems that neither strategy has worked. The militants are running amok taking heavy toll of Iraqi police and security forces notwithstanding losing Fallujah - their terrorist base.
Except for Iraqis resident abroad (who are eligible to vote) the overwhelming majority of local Sunnis either by conviction or fear are not likely to turn up at the polls. The success or failure of the election and its outcome, therefore, exclusively revolves around one man and that is Ayatullah Ali Al-Sistani.
The Shias who form 60 percent majority of Iraqi population, have been persecuted by Saddam Hussain and his hard-core Bathist loyalists for 30 long years. With the fall of the dictator they do feel liberated and are biding their time to come to power. But that does not mean they have acquiesced to the US invasion and occupation of their country.
The Ayatullah, apart from being a revered and respected scholar and religious leader, is worldly wise. He is reclusive and not given to making public appearances or statements, yet he is fully abreast with local and international political cross currents. Despite his dislike for the Americans, he has advised his followers to remain patient and avoid violence notwithstanding provocations by Sunni militants who have tried time and again to bring them to battle.
He knows fully well that despite opposition from within Iraq and by the Arabs in the neighbourhood, elections would be held and going by the norms of democracy, the united Shias would win hands down to form the government.
He then intends to invite the Sunnis to participate in drafting a permanent constitution to ensure their adequate rights and share in power. The example of Lebanon is before them where Shias, Sunnis and Christians have learned to live in peace.
The third important minority are Kurds who too were oppressed by Saddam and they are determined to co-operate fully in making the elections a success. They have been persuaded to give up demand for independent Kurdistan and join the mainstream to play an important roll in free Iraqi government to shape the future of the country. It is said that in order to make the elections look valid, there will have to be a certain minimum turnout at the booths notwithstanding the threats extended by the insurgents backed by al Qaeda.
The interim government has made arrangements to provide maximum possible protection to the voters. There is, therefore, reason to believe that the Shias, Kurds and other ethnic minorities will turn up to swell the numbers. Even in advanced countries 50 percent of population does not bother to vote. In the present circumstances in Iraq even if 30 percent cast their votes, it would lend legality and respectability to the exercise. US troops would then be free to depart as Iraqi government would take over security and maintenance of law and order, unless God forbid civil war breaks out necessitating intervention by foreign forces.
Arabs in the Middle-East need have no fear about another Iranian model theocratic Shia State emerging amidst them. Ayatullah Sistani has made it clear that he has no intention of involving the clergy in running the government which he wants to exclusively leave to the politicians and professionals provided it is Islamic without being fundamentalist as in Iran.
Originally it was intended that UNO would conduct and supervise the elections. But of late it balked when UN officials were targeted by the rebels. A number of international agencies would flock to monitor the momentous passing of mandate from the occupiers to locals. But I believe UN presence and supervision of elections is a must to lend the exercise international credibility.
If all goes well, Bush in his 2nd term would have a face saving excuse to say he liberated Iraq and empowered the locals, forgetting that in the process he brought misery and bloodshed, the scars of which would last for generations. The other day he claimed that his election victory was the proof that the people of America backed his invasion of Iraq and the conduct of war.
Nothing can be further from truth, as the major objectives of war have not been achieved. No weapons of mass destruction have been found, nor terrorism has been uprooted. On the contrary it has spread wider. Above all he has alienated friends and allies around the world. However, following his recent inauguration, he has now 4 more years to rectify his mistakes and atone for his sins.
Comments
Comments are closed.