By SUSAN TAYLOR MARTIN
Published February 20, 2004
In his decade with the Carter Center, Gordon Streeb has monitored elections in some of the world's most troubled nations - Liberia, Sierra Leone and Nigeria, to name just a few. But none faced as many challenges as Iraq.
"We've encountered places where there were unhappy factions, attempts to intimidate voters and the potential for violence around election stations," says Streeb, associate executive director of the center's Peace Programs.
"But I can't think of anywhere there's a potential for groups that did not want elections to threaten voters and observers in the way that could easily happen in Iraq."
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has similar concerns - on Thursday he recommended against holding elections before the United States transfers power to Iraqis on June 30. A leading Shiite cleric has demanded direct elections, but American officials fear the country is too unstable.
Since its founding in 1982 by former President Jimmy Carter, the Atlanta-based Carter Center has won acclaim for its efforts to ensure peaceful, democratic elections around the globe. Carter himself has led monitoring teams to such hot spots as Guyana, Haiti and Jamaica.
Other countries offer a guide for how to proceed in Iraq, though Streeb says it may be a unique case.
In Sierra Leone and East Timor - both ravaged by years of civil war - voting "went quite well in that people said they were willing to accept the outcome and move forward," Streeb says. "Unfortunately, we're talking about much more homogeneous populations in smaller countries."
Iraq, on the other hand, has 25-million people divided into three main factions - Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis - and several small ones. Moreover, they are spread among 18 provinces and have different aspirations. Shiites, who are in the majority, favor a strong central government while Kurds want to continue the semi-autonomy they have long enjoyed in the oil-rich north.
"Even if we can conduct an election, who is going to be elected to what?" Streeb wonders. "Is there a national constituency or 18 constituencies? There is a lack of agreement among Iraqis as to what they want to do - I don't see a political consensus about where this country is going that would get over these hurdles of who is elected to what."
In lieu of direct elections, the American-led Coalition Provisional Authority had proposed a transitional government whose members would be chosen by caucuses in each of the 18 provinces. The system is so complex, even many U.S. officials don't understand it, and on Thursday, L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator in Iraq, seemed to back off the idea.
The best plan, Streeb thinks, might be a three-stage approach designed to build consensus among Iraqis before they actually go to the polls.
First, the 25-member Iraqi Governing Council, handpicked by the United States, could be expanded to 75 members who are more representative of Iraqi society and "less American influenced," Streeb says.
But he stresses that no one group can be seen as dominating the others. "You need to build into the transition something that clearly gives the minorities - the Sunnis and Kurds, in terms of numbers - some comfort that their rights and roles are not going to be controlled by the majority."
From this expanded governing council, Iraq could move on to an interim government that would draft a constitution, adopt electoral rules and eventually hold elections for a permanent government.
Key to a successful transition of power is the United Nations, which Iraqis see as more neutral than their American occupiers, Streeb says.
"Where the U.N. can help is to bring the parties together to form some sort of national body. But whatever form that takes, you clearly want Iraqis themselves to put together the rules for the transition and how you move to a new constitution. That is the core thing that needs to be done right."
Perhaps the closest parallel to Iraq's situation is Afghanistan, a country of 28-million that already has set up a government and written a constitution. But the Afghan experience shows what can happen when there is a lack of consensus about a country's future - elections planned for June may have to be postponed because vast areas are still under the control of warlords.
"While the U.N. has had success in conducting elections that were accepted in smaller places," Streeb says, "to me, the lessons to be learned out of Afghanistan are what not to do."
