Nonviolent elections a good sign in Iraq

Loory: Are we seeing the real beginning of the end in Iraq right now? About 51 percent of eligible voters cast ballots (Jan. 31) with almost no violence. The Iraqis did it themselves, with the American forces mostly remaining at their bases. The results showed that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s law and order party did well in Iraq’s two largest cities: Baghdad and the southern city of Basra. In the northern provinces where the Kurdish minority is strong, and in the south where competing Shiite sects go at each other, things went peacefully. All of that speaks well for plans to get American troops out of Iraq in 16 months, perhaps even earlier. Is this too rosy a picture? What is the state of war in Iraq right now and what does the future portend?

Stephen Farrell, Baghdad correspondent, The New York Times, Baghdad: Prime Minister Maliki has won nine of the 14 provinces contested. He got 38 percent of the vote in Baghdad. That is his highest with very similar figures in Basra. But in other provinces, it is much lower. He is going to have to form a coalition absolutely everywhere, while in some places he could easily be outvoted by a group of other parties. His Dawa Party is actually surprised, verging on shocked, at how poorly they did compared with what they expected.

Loory: Do you hear anything different? Is this the way things are going and what does this portend for the future in Iraq?

Zuhair Al-Jezairy, editor-in-chief, Aswat al-Iraq (Voices of Iraq) News Agency, Baghdad: The atmosphere is quite peaceful. There is kind of joy here in Baghdad. People are happy that the election went smoothly without any violence.

Ghufran Younis, news desk, Alsumaria TV, Baghdad: This provincial election could mark a new chapter for Iraq’s struggle with democracy. The election is a political revolution that involved hundreds of new parties and thousands of new candidates.

Loory: The Institute for War and Peace Reporting monitors all of Iraq. Do you also have the impression that this is a political revolution?

Neil Arun, Iraq editor, Institute for War and Peace Reporting, Erbil, Iraq: It is something lower, an evolution perhaps. It is a sign of a big change, compared to the elections a few years ago, that becomes apparent. On the day of the provincial elections in 2005, 50 people were killed. The overall turnout was around 55 percent. At this election, only one death was reported, but the turnout was lower, around 50 percent.

Loory: What are the implications of a low turnout? Does this indicate dissatisfaction by the Iraqi people?

Arun: It seems to be disillusionment with the political process. A lot of the people who voted last time feel that the people they elected haven’t really improved things. There were also problems with voter registration. Many people in Iraq are not living in their original homes because they were displaced from the violence. People found that they weren’t able to vote at their nearest polling station and couldn’t make it to the right one.

Loory: What are the implications of this election for American policy toward Iraq?

Wayne White, adjunct scholar, Middle East Institute and Middle East Policy Council, Skytop, Pa.: While the picture is generally good here and it should allow President Obama to disengage more freely from the situation, there are a few spots to be watched, and one is the under-vote. The largest under-vote, especially in Anbar, was on the Sunni Arab side. If that persists into the national elections, then Sunni Arabs will cry foul if they have received less than their percentage of the pie. Two other things we have to watch out for with U.S. disengagement is the situation in Anbar, where there was tribal anger over disputed voting results, and also in the north, where Arabs scored well at the expense of Kurds.

Loory: One gets the impression that American troops are no longer very active in Iraq. Is that true and does that mean the disengagement can be hastened?

Farrell: Iraq’s sky is completely controlled by the U.S. military, and they are certainly very active. That is important. It means Baghdadis on the ground know that American troops can be there quickly or can provide air cover for Iraqi troops. Americans are seen less on the ground, but they are still active and powerful. No one can predict precisely what will happen when American troops draw down in significant numbers. It is possible that a lot of bad guys are waiting for that moment; I’m not saying it will happen. It feels different in Baghdad standing here right now from any time back to 2003.

Jezairy: This election is a good example that Iraqi forces can act on the ground. At the moment, there is no sectarian rage. It seems to be support for the Iraqi forces or it shows that the coalition between the forces can make this peace. The plan to replace American forces with Iraqi is playing very well in the streets.

Loory: What are the implications of this election on the influence of Iraq’s neighbors Syria and Iran? Does this mean they will get more active or will the U.S. negotiate with them?

White: The main concern to most people is Iran. The Iranian affiliated parties took some hits in this election. This reduces the opportunity for their involvement, although Maliki himself has had close ties. Iran benefits to the extent there is a vacuum or unrest in Iraq. The administration will probably proceed slowly with Iranian negotiations because of the impending presidential elections there. The administration must now consider the Iraqi government in any negotiations it has with Iran about Iraq. The age of negotiating over the heads of Iraqi leadership is over.

Loory: What have you heard from the Shiite parties that did not do well in the election?

Farrell: The Supreme Council, ISKE, the party closest to Iran, most of its leaders spent 20 years in exile there during Saddam, are unhappy with the results. They are down everywhere, very marginalized. The Sadrists did better than expected. The only concern is the poor showing of secular parties. Nowhere is there any sign that Shia are voting for Sunni or vice versa. Not that we expect it, but they’re not even voting for the secular parties that did worse than we thought.

Loory: Explain what the provincial elections indicate for the future of the central government.

Farrell: These elections were about redressing imbalances that were built in from the fact that many people had boycotted the previous election. People could now vote in Sunnis who had boycotted elections in 2005 and who have now come back in from the cold. In the south, overwhelmingly Shia areas, it gave people a chance to deliver their verdict on the religious parties who had been running things badly in many areas without water or electricity services. In many cases, incumbents have been kicked out.

Loory: Why were there no elections in several Kurdish controlled areas in Northern Iraq and why was it postponed to take place later in the year?

Arun: The Kurdish provinces have always been regarded as a separate entity from the rest of Iraq. The decision to postpone elections was logistical, except in Kirkuk, which is one of the four provinces that did not have elections. Kirkuk is heavily contested between Kurdish and Arab populations, it is rich in oil, and there were fears that an election might destabilize the region. The sectarian conflicts in Iraq have calmed down somewhat, but there is an ethnic conflict between the Kurds and the Arabs coming to the foreground, and Kirkuk is the focus of this.

Loory: What we have heard today indicates some promise, but that there is still a lot of concern about the future.

Producers of Global Journalist are Missouri School of Journalism graduate students Jared Gassen, Brian Jarvis, Sananda Sahoo and Melissa Ulbricht. The transcriber is Pat Kelley.