Iraq Elections

Iraqi election workers Tuesday began collecting the vote tallies from around the country, putting the finishing touches on the first free election in Iraq in half a century. The country's roughly 5,000 polling centers will produce more than 68,000 tally sheets. Whatever happens next, the pictures of Iraqi voters streaming to the polls and holding up ink-stained fingers to show they had cast their ballots will go down as one of the defining images of President Bush's ambitious project to introduce democracy to the Middle East.

What does the election mean for Iraqis? For U.S. troops on duty there? For U.S. foreign policy?

Larry Diamond, senior fellow at the Hoover Institute, was online Tuesday, Feb. 1, at Noon ET to field your questions and comments about Sunday's democratic elections in Iraq.

The transcript follows.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

_____________

Chicago, Ill.: Do you believe that Sunday's election will further alienate the Sunni minority? What incentive do they have to drop their tacit support of the insurgency and join the political process when in doing so it will cement their status as the former rulers of Iraq?

Larry Diamond: I think this all remains to be determined. The Sunni center of the country will emerge from the election results severely under-represented in parliament, because of the huge disparity in turnout between these provinces (such as Al-Anbar) and those in the Kurdish north and the Shiite South. The Question is whether those who are elected to parliament and form the new government have the resolve, flexibility and imagination to reach out to the Sunnis, who have organized themselves and are prepared to talk.

A national roundtable discussion is needed on widening the political arena. Marginalized elements could be brought into the Constitutional Drafting Committee and the Cabinet. There could be informal mechanisms of consultation as well. It would have been better if they had been able to gain fairer representation in parliament, but that would have required postponing the elections and changing the electoral system. Now it is very hard to do--amending the interim constitution requires a 3/4 vote of the Assembly and unanimous approval of the presidency council.

_______________________

Westfield, N.J.: I just read an op-ed by Peter Galbraith in the New York Times today saying that Kurdish independence is a significant issue for the future. I wonder what your reactions are to this?

Larry Diamond: It is a significant issue that will not go away. It seems that Kurds expressed an overwhelming desire for independence in the recent referendum. However, Kurdish leaders know that any move toward independence would precipitate massive violence internally in Iraq and possibly a three-front invasion from neighboring states that do not want an independent Kurdistan because of the irrendendist implications for their own Kurdish minorities. If the final constitution preserves the kind of federalist bargain that was struck in the interim constitution, with substantial minority rights, cultural rights, and veto rights for the Kurds, I think Kurds will realize they are better off staying in Iraq.

_______________________

Cambridge, Mass.: Although I admire the first-rate work you have done on democratization, I fail to understand the rationale for your position prior to Sunday's elections. You repeatedly called for the elections to be postponed, arguing that they would not be legitimate because the Sunnis would not take part to the same extent that the Kurds and Shiites did. But how would a posponement have mitigated this problem? The likely result of a postponement would have been to embolden the terrorists, giving them a "victory" for their brutal attacks on election workers, political candidates, and other ordinary Iraqis. If the elections had been postponed for six months, would the terrorist resistance have diminished by then, allowing countrywide elections to proceed? I doubt that the Sunni resistance, led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other ruthless terrorists, would have suddenly ceased their violent mayhem and swung around to participating in the electoral process. Your position was totally at odds with the reality on the ground in Iraq. What is occurring there is a transfer of power from a privileged minority (the Sunnis) to a large majority (Shiites and Kurds) whom the Sunnis had systematically repressed for decades. Is it any surprise that Sunni terrorists would be resisting this change? And does anyone really think that the Sunnis would be more amenable to yielding power if the Baathist and Islamic terrorists had been rewarded for their violence? I realize that you were unhappy that your proposal for the electoral structure was not adopted, but that does not justify your call for a postponement.

Larry Diamond: I did not call for a postponement in the belief that if we waited a few months the violence would subside and everything would be just be swell in Iraq. I called for a postponement because I felt it was the best way of bringing the Sunnis, and other marginalized Arab nationalist elements, into the political process--and into the elections. To do this would have required a change in the electoral system to ensure some minimum floor of representation for each province, as the predominantly Sunni provinces will now be severely under-represented.

Here is what I think many people missed. A number of the political and religious groups based in the Sunni heartland have been sending signals over the course of the last year and a half that they want to talk to the United States and are prepared to come into the electoral process. Not all of the groups supporting or sympathizing with the insurgency are the same. Some are hopeless deadenders--foreign jihadists and high-ranking Baathists with blood on their hands who have nowhere else to go. But others have waged or supported the insurgency for more tactical reasons. They know the Sunnis are not going to come back to rule the country. But they worry that the tables will now be turned on them, that their section of the country will be oppressed. And they feel their country is under occupation and they want some commitment that at some point it will end. I don't know all their concerns and demands, but they have published some of them and I think there was a basis, is still a basis, for negotiation. If we bring these groups into the political process, we will rip them away from the dead-end insurgents, the hopeless jihadists, and undermine the insurgency. Iraq will be a safer place, with better prospects for democracy. Fewer Iraqis and foreigners--I think many fewer, including fewer Americans--will die as a result. That was a prospect that I think was worth a modest two or three-month postponement of the election.

By the way, when I wrote the NYT piece, I had a pretty reliable report that a strong majority of the Iraqi cabinet wanted the elections postponed.

_______________________

Los Angeles, Calif.: I'm not sure what it is about Mr. Perle, but he continues to tout Mr. Chalabi as Iraq's main man. In an eye-opening debate yesterday on Nightline Mr. Perle continued to espouse the ability of Chalabi to rule Iraq and lamented that we did not turn over power immediately to them and leave. I would appreciate your comments on this (I think Perle is delusional).

Larry Diamond: I think Ahmed Chalabi is a brilliant tactician and a voraciously ambitious politician who has no loyalty to any principle except his own political advancement. He completely turned from a secular democrat into the political ally of Muqtada al-Sadr. It is simply astounding that his Washington friends and sponsors can continue to tout him as the answer to Iraq's problems. Embarrassing, breathtakingly myopic are other terms that come to mind.

_______________________

Greenbelt, Md.: I've been hearing a lot about the high voter turnout in Iraq, like 75 percent in some areas. I still don't know, however, if these percentages are of the total voting-age population or if they are only of those who registered to vote.

If they are of the entire population, how was the population even counted given the severe problems in the country? If it is only of registered voters, what does that translate to in terms of the best estimate of the entire population?

Larry Diamond: Unfortunately the reporting has been very confusing and I really don't know the answer to your question. The reports generally are on the basis of registered voters. The UN and other experts believe that the food ration card system provided pretty good indications of the population in each are and province, and that was the core basis from which they constructed the voter register. But I doubt that more than 80-90 percent of the population was registered to vote.

Still, if voter turnout averaged 60 percent nationwide, and 70-80 percent of registered voters in many provinces, I think this is very impressive, in the circumstances of IRaq today. It means that more than half the eligible voters, quite possibly well over half, voted. the problem is the disparity in turnout between sections of the country, as I have noted.

_______________________

Michigan: Afghanistan. Now Iraq. Bush seems to have a habit of planting the seeds of democracy in former tyrannies. Will this help in our relations with Europe? And how do the Democrats recover from "Bush Was Right" Syndrome? (BWRS, or "bowers")

Larry Diamond: Obviously much will depend on how the election turns out and the success of the transitional government in writing a new constitution, governing effectively without massive corruption, and widening the political arena so as to reduce the insurgency. Everything is still up in the air, and there is a wide range of possible outcomes. But success would tend to mute the critics.

I think the Europeans want to see the U.S. deal in a more multilateral challenge in the future with threats to collective security, such as the Iran nuclear program. We have been working with the EU-3 on Iran. Let's see what they can produce in combination with the implicit US threat of force if Iran does not sign a deal to halt its nuclear fuel enrichment program.

_______________________

Ottawa, Canada: Mr. Diamond,

Do you believe you have to reassess any of your pessimistic predictions about the state of Iraq, in light of the election?

Larry Diamond: I would like nothing better in three months, twelve months, two years, to say, I was too pessimistic, this has gone better than I thought it might. But I have never dismissed the possibilities for democracy in Iraq, otherwise why would I have gone there in the first place. What I have worried about in the past year is that a number of mistakes of the U.S. and I think the political process in Iraq were diminishing the prospects for democracy and stability in Iraq.

I think whatever happens, the U.S. has made a number of serious mistakes, including setting up an occupation in the first place. Power should have been transferred to Iraqis much sooner, without an occupation. A broad-based interim government could have been constructed in the summer of 2003. that is what the UN favored.

You can read my views on the "lessons from Iraq" in the current issue of the Journal of Democracy, www.journalofdemocracy.org has my article online.

_______________________

Detroit, Mich.: Would you agree that the assessment for the type of democracy and policies of a future Iraqi government are being portrayed too optimistically by the administration and conservative news channels (e.g., Fox News)? Given that Iraq is an Arab country with many surrounding Arab countries and that there is an active insurgency with plenty of weapons around the country, a future government will in the end try to keep their distance from us as much as possible when we withdraw and will support policies that are in line with neighboring countries.

Larry Diamond: I think this is too soon to be determined. If there is a democracy in Iraq, it will be a pluralistic power-sharing government with at least a moderately Islamist bent. It will not be a reliable American ally, but it may well also not be anti-American or hostile to our broad aims for democracy and peace in the region, and for a permanent peace with Israel, living within secure borders. I think the neoconservative ambition to have a strong American ally in Iraq, and a site for permanent military bases in the region, is really unrealistic and provokes hostility in the region. We should declare that we do not intend to establish permanent military bases in Iraq and will only do so if asked by an elected Iraqi government and approved in the democratic process there.

_______________________

Montreal, Canada: What roles will the clerics play in the new government and the drafting of the new constitution?

Larry Diamond: It depends on what percentage of the seats in parliament religiously oriented parties win. My guess is that if the United Iraqi Alliance wins 40 percent or more of the seats in parliament, then Shiite clerics of varying types may have a significant role in shaping the constitution. Certainly Grand Ayatollah Sistani will make his views known at least indirectly.

However, the process will be one of intense bargaining, and I don't think any one group will be able to dominate the process. It will be a compromise of some sort, like the interim constitution was a compromise.

_______________________

Los Angeles, Calif.: Juan Cole seems to think that the seeming success of the election is negated by the fact that Bush once opposed such an election until Sistani insisted on it.

Does that seem like an important point to you?

Larry Diamond: I am not sure that is exactly what Juan Cole meant. He did note that the Bush Administration--and I can tell you, the CPA on the ground--had opposed a national election for this parliament. CPA also vetoed many plans for local elections. However, I don't think that is relevant to assessing the Iraqi elections that just occurred. It was a moving demonstration of desire for and faith in the democratic process. Who could fail to celebrate that?

_______________________

Pittsburgh, Pa.: Hello and thank you for taking our questions. What happens next? How long do you think it will take to write and adopt a constitution?

Larry Diamond: The constitution is supposed to be drafted by the Transitional National Assembly by August 15. Then a referendum is due by October 15. HOwever, the interim constitution allows for a one-time six-month extension of the process. I think there is a very strong chance that the bargaining will be so difficult and complex that they will avail themselves of that one-time extension. Keep in mind also that the interim constitution--and the spirit of democracy--both require that the Assembly consult the Iraqi people, hold public hearings, forums, and dialogues, about what different Iraqi constituencies want to see in the constitution. This will take time. I think it may well require more than a few months. Keep in mind also that it will take a few weeks to organize the Assembly, form a government, and so on. The Constitution Drafting Committee will probably not get down to business until mid-March, earliest. All major groups in the country will need to be involved and consulted.

_______________________

Munich, Germany: A couple of weeks ago, I was convinced that the Iraqi elections were going to be a disaster and Bush's vision of a world where all people live in freedom was merely empty politically rhetoric.

Now that the elections have succeeded beyond most people's expectations, what do you think that this will mean for America's traditional allies in the middle-east, such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan, where democracy is not the order of the day? Do you think that the Bush administration will try to influence these regimes towards assuming a more democratic posture?

Larry Diamond: Clearly the Bush Administration intends to encourage or foster democratic progress in other Arab states. What disappoints me is the tendency of President Bush to use inflated, sweeping rhetoric, as in his inaugural address (which I found in many ways inspiring), and then back off and issue "clarifications" that essentially say to authoritarian regimes in the region: hey, don't panic, I didn't mean it. The week after President Bush first launched his sweeping vision of democratization in the MIddle East, and declared a historic change in US policy, on NOvember 6, 2003, he welcomed the Tunisian President to the White House for a state visit. What message does that send?

I think so much depends on how things go in Iraq. Keep in mind, WE DON'T EVEN KNOW THE RESULTS YET. All we know is that Iraqis exhibited great courage and democratic faith in coming out to vote in the numbers they did. It was deeply moving, but it was only the first step. Can their new elected representatives govern effectively, and negotiate their differences? Can they reach agreement on a constitution? Can they manage the deep regional, ethnic, and religious and ideological fissures in the country? I think they are capable of doing so, but it remains to be determined if they will do so. We must know the answers to these questions before we know what impact the Iraqi model will have on the rest of the region.

I will say this however: IF Iraq succeeds in building a viable democracy over the coming years, while reducing violence and increasing consensus on the rules of the game, I think the impact on other Arab states will be profound, even if gradual.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: What do you think that the results of the election will be? Who will be Prime Minister and what the the Constitutional Parliment make up be?

Larry Diamond: I think the two most likely outcomes are

1) A dispersion of the vote around a number of lists, with the Kurdish list winning about 20 percent of the seats, perhaps a little more, the Allawi list winning 20-30 percent of the seats, and the United Iraqi Alliance winning perhaps 30 percent of the seats, with smaller lists and parties accounting for the rest. I think most of the moderates, secular forces, and ethnic and religious minorities will favor Allawi for Prime Minister. So I think he will emerge as prime minister again.

2) It is possible that the United Iraqi Alliance could wind up winning a much higher percentage of seats, maybe 40-45 percent. I thought this was likely at one time, when it was presenting itself to Shiites as the "Sistani list". But I think the impulse for pluralism won out over the implicit call to Shiite solidarity and religious authority. If the Alliance does win closer to 50 percent of the seats, then one of its key leaders, such as Adel Abdel Mahdi, Ibrahim Jaafari, or Hussein Sharistani, could become a serious candidate for prime minister.

Sharistani is an absolutely pivotal figure to watch for the future. He was the UN's choice for interim prime minister, he is close to Sistani and yet he is deeply respected by many thoughtful secular democrats in Iraq. I predict he will emerge as a major bridge between camps, and an important force for dialogue and consensus in the new parliament.

Watch for Adnan Pachachi also to assume a crucial role, either as the new President or as someone who will steer the constitutional process again toward consensus and democracy, as he did during the making of the interim constitution.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Playing off the last question, Why is the unity of Iraq so important in the political calculus? It seems that with the disparate political religious and territorial conflicts it would be easier to manage a separation than to force a single state.

Larry Diamond: I strongly sympathize with the plight of the Kurds, and not only in Iraq. These are twenty million people or so, with a proud history and a rich culture, who have been badly abused by various governments in the region. They are the largest stateless nationality group in the world. But the reality is that breaking up Iraq could not be done peacefully. There would be a civil war for control of Kirkuk, control of Mosul, control of the northern oil fields. People are intertwined in many cities, and in families. It would be a ghastly trauma. I think keeping Iraq together in a federal democracy in which there is an autonomous Kurdistan with signficant devolved powers, but not independence, is a better option for the region, for Iraq, and for the Kurdish people.

_______________________

Alexendria, Va.: Re: your response to Cambridge Mass. Is it still your position that the election should have been postponed for three months?

Larry Diamond: We now go from the realm of what should be done to the realm of historical reflection. And I think it is much too early to know whether Iraq would have been better off postponing the election for three months. That will depend on whether a deal can be worked out now, after the election, with the marginalized and aggrieved Sunni elements. If it is worked out, then the country will stand to realize all of the benefits that are obvious from holding the election on time, without the big downside of a perpetuation or even deepening of the insurgency. If it is not worked out, then we are looking at years of ugly violence.

By the way, I did not favor postponing the election by fiat. It was always clear to me that this could only have happened as the result of a broad negotiated agreement among all parties, as I said in my piece

_______________________

Kennesaw, Ga.: Good afternoon, Mr. Diamond. Much of the commentary I've seen in the last few days has dealt with the ways and means of "reaching out" to the alienated Sunni minority. I would have thought there might be more talk about this needing to be a two way street.

What will the Sunni Arabs, who were largely responsible for the crimes of the former Baathist government and have supported an insurgency that has repeatedly targeted Shiites and Kurds, need to do to show they can be trusted? In the political sphere? In the security area, with respect to former regime elements and non-Iraqi terrorists being sheltered in Sunni Arab areas?

Larry Diamond: Let's keep in mind that it is not "the Sunni Arabs" as a section of the country but rather the members of Saddam's regime who were responsible for the horrible crimes of the past. I do not believe in collective punishment.

That said, the spirit of your question is well taken. Any dialogue would have to be a two-way street. The parties and social forces who are signalling a potential willingness to come into the process would need to 1) renounce violence; 2) if they are Sunni clerics, preach from the pulpit in their Friday sermons calls for peaceful participation in the political process and an end to the insurgency; and 3) commit to cooperate in the constitution-making process. I think these goals are achievable if the political arena is widened. Then of course, they need to show results. Once they are brought in, they need to kick out al-Zarqawi and other foreign jihadists, and help the transitional government restore order.

_______________________

Denver, Colo.: USAID has spent almost two years and (guessing) $300 Million to strengthen local governance. So, where in Iraq are neighborhoods or villages governed by locally elected officials ?
While you were in charge of advising Ambassador Bremer on democratic governance, he was fighting tooth and nail to prevent local elections (e.g., al-Hillah.) Was this what you advised?
The US has steadfastly refused to permit authentic local leaders to have a role in the new Iraq (think Sheik Moqtada al-Sadr.) We brought in folks with Danish and British and US passports, called them "Iraqi," and put them in charge of a land they no longer knew. At what point would you recommend giving Iraq back to the Iraqis ? And don't tell me these elections, carefully engineered to bolster our lackeys, are evidence of self-determination.

Larry Diamond: I was never "in charge" of anything in Iraq, for better or worse. I do think it was a big mistake not to hold local elections, and if I had been able to do so, I would have advised holding them, but by the time I arrived in January of 2004 the decision to veto them had already been made. In my forthcoming book, Squandered victory, I discuss this in some detail.

I think that Muqtada al-Sadr who is really not the model of an "authentic local leader" one would want to cite. He is a vicious thug and criminal who has been responsible for really horrible violence. ALso, I do not think it is fair to disparage all Iraqi exiles who have come back to participate in building a new Iraq. I think the answer is to hold local elections and see who emerges.

I also think it is not quite fair to condemn these recent eletions in the way you do. I think you will see that the new government leaders will have a variety of views and will assert more independence from the US>

_______________________

Laguna Hills, Calif.: Is it true that the U.S. paid some of the candidates to run?

Larry Diamond: I honestly just don't know. I wanted to see the establishment of a TRANSPARENT, public political parties fund to assist all political partis, but it wasn't possible and never happened.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Since a disproportionately low number of Sunnis voted. Do you think a minimum number of seats will be reserved for Sunnis on the national assembly and if so wouldn't the members appointed be puppets to the Shiites who put them in power and not a real representation of the Sunni population?

Larry Diamond: This is not consittutionally possible for the reasons i posted earlier. It would require an amendment to the interim constitution, and 3/4 vote of the Assembly would be needed.

_______________________

McLean, Va.: I don't understand why everyone is reporting that the Iraqi elections were an unmitigated success.

Shiites and Kurds voted, as expected.

Sunnis didn't vote, as expected.

This will undoubtably lead to a bloody and horrifying civil war. Wow! What a success!

Larry Diamond: This is what I have worried about. But it remains to be seen whether the Sunnis can be brought into the process. It will be much more difficult after the election, but not impossible. Much depends on the negotiating skill and vision of Iraq's leadres.

_______________________

"I think keeping Iraq together ... is a better option for the region, for Iraq, and for the Kurdish people.": But why?

Larry Diamond: I tried to explain: For the simple reason that breaking up the country would lead to a ghastly civil war, extensive ethnic cleansing, a lot of human misery. I think it is possible to hold Iraq together in peace as a federal democracy.

_______________________

Durham, N.C.: Call me old-fashioned, but is Sunday's election in Iraq worth the price US citizens have paid in lives, money and prestige? More importantly, do Iraqi's think it was worth it -- or are they "making lemonade when life hands you lemons"?

I don't know any one who opposes the war thinking that Bush was right about anything. It all seems like an exercise to put some western controls on oil production there.

Larry Diamond: I don't think this is just about oil. President Bush deeply believes in the power and promise of freedom. I do question whether he understands how we can be effective in promoting it, but I don't doubt that this is a strong goal of his.

You raise a different question. Every time I see that parade of American faces, of lost soldiers, in the NY Times and the News Hour, it breaks my heart. I find it very painful. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Iraq was not an imminent threat to our national security. Now the only thing that can justify the loss of so many American lives, and of so much of our treasure, is some degree of success in transforming Iraq into a more decent, democratic, responsible, and effective state. It will be many years before we know if that has been achieved.

_______________________

Los Angeles, Calif.: Dear Dr. Diamond,

I really admire your observation and analysis, but it seems like with a book coming out called "Squandered Victory" you might have some stake in viewing the situation pessimistically.

Larry Diamond: You are not the first person to make that observation to me, but I think when you read my book you will see that this is a judgement on the American occupation after the war, until June 28, 2004. I do think we squandered a historic victory, and that this led to much needless violence and instability. THe whole American occupation was a mistake in my view. But this does not mean that Iraq cannot know become a democracy, It just means that more lives will have been lost, more treasure wasted, and more grievances against the US generated, than was necessary.

In any case, I would rather be wrong, or look foolish, and have Iraq succeed in becoming a democracy than be able to savor failure because it matches what people presume to be the implication of my book title.

_______________________

Sunnyvale, Calif.: Many countries new to democracy have elected demagogues when they grew frustrated with the slow pace of progress under democracy. Examples include Hitler and Milosevic. Would you be surprized if after a period of euphoria, Iraq eventually reverts to a dictatorship when the people vote a dictator into power? If so, would our efforts have then been in vain?

Larry Diamond: This will need to be my last answer because I have to catch a plane. I apologize to everyone else in the queue because the questions have been thoughtful and challenging, and reflect strong views but also considered and informed opinions.

I think we need to have a little more faith in democracy, if we can help to bring about the enabling environment for it. HItler never received a majority of the German vote. Yes, if elections are not structured well, if they political process gets polarized along ethnic lines, it can be disastrous, but I think there is a chance that democracy can work in Iraq.

_______________________