Democratic Occupation and Occupied Democracies
Salameh Nematt Al-Hayat 2005/02/5
It seems that terrorism in Iraq blew up in the face of its perpetrators. Instead of achieving the objective of impeding the Iraqi elections and encumbering the process of the inauguration of the majority in their respective positions according to the ethos of democracy, it meted out damages to the side these terrorists claim to defend and their acquired, yet wasted rights, with the collapse of the mass grave regime. Despite the fact that the majority of the Sunnis do not support terrorism and the terrorists, as they consider themselves to be the victims of these acts, the elections and the terrorist activities that followed placed the Sunnis in a dilemma; they found themselves obliged to doubt the legitimacy of these elections, despite the fact that the so-called Coalition, not the people in charge of these elections, sought to obstruct the electoral process and undermine its legitimacy.
In the context Sunni participation in the process of governance the question remains: Who is speaking and negotiating on behalf to the Sunnis? Is it Adnan Pachachi, who participated in these elections, or Abu Musaab Al Zarkawi, who tried to blow up the entire electoral process? Are the Arab governments negotiating and speaking on behalf of the Sunnis - these governments have suddenly awakened and realized the importance of Sunni representation in Iraq?
There are no differences in the context of the democratic program that stability in Iraq and its national unity within its borders require a fair representation of all the different components of the Iraqi people. However, the incomplete legitimate representation in Iraq does not adamantly mean that it is absent as some might imagine. Legitimacy with 80 percent participation is better than "no legitimacy" without any elections.
It is naïve to believe that the incentive of those who are using the excuse of the incomplete legitimate representation in the Iraqi elections is their vigilance towards political fairness. It is well-known that a just representation was never an issue in the dealings between the Arab governments, and was never an issue elicited by the Arabs as it is being raised today with respect to Iraq. The truth that we should admit is the fact that these people who are using the excuse of incomplete legitimate representation in Iraq have a problem with the idea of elections and the paradigm of democracy, which did not come to Iraq except on the top of an American tank. The real problem is the idea itself, not the salesman or means of implementation.
Nobody expects the elections in Iraq to be as refined as in Sweden, and no one is speaking of "complete" representation of the Iraqi people. However, it is necessary and we should ask the following question: what is the better alternative that would be fairer and more representative other than what the Iraqi elections have produced?
|
