Though the world held its breath, for the Iraqis, the elections of January 30 were a festive occasion. They were widely seen as the first step to a new democracy, and saw a turnout of around 55-65 per cent. Yet it was a strangely surreal election. Polling stations were kept a closely-guarded secret till elections began, there was no campaigning, most candidates were identified by numbers and heavy security meant that most roads were cordoned off. While violence did claim nearly 40 lives, the moderately high turnout revealed the unequivocal response of most Iraqis towards democracy. And George Bush lost no time in claiming the election?s success.

The presence of American forces will continue to cast a shadow in post- election Iraq. Yet, it is equally true that Iraqis, of their own volition, braved the threat of violence. It is clear that more people voted in the Kurd- and Shia-dominated areas. In Sunni-dominated central Iraq, where most of the violence has been centred, the turnout was estimated at around 40 per cent. And Kurds conducted their own referendum on independence outside polling stations in Kurdistan.

Little say

The elections, ostensibly, will lead to a season of democracy. The formation of a 275-member provisional constitutional assembly will lead to the appointment of a president and two deputies, and subsequently a constitution that will be put to a referendum earliest by December. But it remains to be seen how much democracy the United States of America will allow in the country. Those opposing the occupation ?chose? not to join the election process. And expectedly, the more favoured men will continue to figure prominently in the new Iraqi administration.

Meanwhile, as security concerns remain, there is to be no withdrawal of the coalition forces in the near future. So, while it is very clear what the elections were about, what they were not about is also apparent ? it was not a vote against what most Iraqis see as an occupation of their country. Thus as the assembly debates over a new constitution, most Iraqis will continue to have as little say as before.

Bush fever

It is unlikely that peace will return to Iraq in the next few months. Ironically, the successful conduct of elections has stamped the legitimacy of the American goal in Iraq. Already it is accepted by the world community that the United Nations, consistently sidelined in Iraq, will not have a major role in post-election Iraq. The elections have blunted the criticism of the US occupation there. Most countries in the European Union have welcomed the elections and earlier sceptics, like France and Germany, have been silenced. West Asia has adopted a ?wait and watch? policy. And India is expected to bargain for a more substantive role in the reconstruction process.

Bush could not have asked for a better start to his second term. The elections appear to prove conclusively that the American experiment of bringing democracy to west Asia has paid off. There is now every possibility and fear that this American formula will be replicated elsewhere ? notably in Iran and Syria. The steps are: first, a transitional authority to ?oversee? elections; second, an assembly to draft a constitution; third, formation of national government. They appear to have worked well in Afghanistan. But in Afghanistan, development seems to have come to a standstill. Worse, other authoritarian regimes are apparently picking a leaf or two of this version of America?s exported democracy. Soon after the Iraq elections, Zimbabwe?s Robert Mugabe promised fresh elections next month. People?s aspirations can, it seems, be whetted by such promises. As for how representative they are, that is anybody?s guess.