Elections to Iraq's transitional national assembly, scheduled for January 30th, are a critical test for the credibility and legitimacy of the interim government nominated by the occupation forces led by the United States last June. Despite an escalating campaign of resistance and an intense debate on the election timetable, the interim Iraqi President, Mr Iyad Allawi, and President Bush have refused to postpone the voting. To do so would concede a huge advantage to the resistance, much of which is based on a determination by traditional elites from the 20 per cent Sunni minority not to yield power to majority Shia communities and the parties representing them.
Most Shias support the elections, despite the deeply- flawed conditions in which they are being held, believing that they present an opportunity to right a historic wrong reinforced during the Saddam Hussein regime and open up a perspective of returning Iraq to self-rule, free of occupation. The assembly will draft a constitution to be put to a referendum in October and prepare the way for full-scale national assembly elections on December 15th. Shia leaders such as the influential Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani are in favour of the elections, as are the young rebel Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and his supporters. A significant minority of Shia parties favour a boycott or a postponement, as do a majority of Sunni parties. Secular Iraqis are similarly divided on the issue, while most Kurdish parties support the elections.
Mr Bush has rejected the argument made by his former adviser, Mr Brent Scowcroft, who says that the vote will deepen the conflict and encourage an incipient civil war in Iraq. Security is a crucial issue. Mr Bush says that only four of the country's 18 provinces are most directly affected by the resistance, with much progress having been made elsewhere. But these four are in the Fertile Crescent, the most important part of the country and home to one third of its population. Despite the presence of 150,000 US troops, plans to train Iraqi police and military to protect 9,000 voting booths are far behind. The fear factor will drive up Sunni abstention, on top of those who plan to boycott the elections in principle. A turnout of 30 per cent in Sunni areas will be regarded as high in these circumstances - certainly not a reassuring sign of legitimacy.
Despite these grave shortcomings, it must be recognised that most Iraqis welcome the opportunity to vote and look forward to more self-government. The question is whether these elections, held now, can best deliver it, whether by creating a new political framework, a more credible government or preparing the way for a US disengagement. There is still scope for postponing the voting in the most insecure provinces, for guaranteeing seats to Sunni representatives in the constitutional process and for Shia leaders like Ayatollah al-Sistani to exert a moderating influence. Whatever happens on January 30th, Mr Bush faces extremely tough choices about the US military and political roles in Iraq over coming months.