Undoubtedly the U.S. has secured a military victory in Iraq, but the real test is to effectively rebuild Iraq while making a smooth transition. The challenge is for the U.S. to secure a legitimate Iraqi government approved by Iraqis, not by the U.S. or any other country that would establish either a dictatorship or a radical Islamic theocracy similar to Iran. The assumption of having an immediate democratic government is unrealistic. Democracy is not an overnight process and to force it immediately will be a big mistake. A gradual transition -after 30 years under the Hussein’s oppression requires patience. The task to guarantee a stable Iraq is to explain clearly the concept of democracy and the benefits of its institution in contrast to the oppression and lack of liberty promoted by extremism or authoritarianism. Will the outcome of a free democratic election lead to stabilization and a friendly government to the U.S and the West, or an Islamic theocracy inspired by the Shiite Ayatollah Khomeini? Will liberty, limited government, freedom of religion, and free trade be a success in Iraq?
The process of stabilization could take years to overcome a rocky road towards democracy. Democracy is built upon the bedrock of a civil society. The road for a unified and democratic Iraq is shaky, unstable and rocky, at best. Iraq is mainly divided in three groups, the Kurds, the Shiite-Muslims, and Sunni-Muslims—divided by religious differences. For years, the Shiites have distrusted the Sunnis, and the Kurds, as they are also ethnically different, trust neither the Sunnis nor the Shiites. Thus, the task is to instill values of mutual cooperation among these groups, including tribal leaders. However, this process is not done by a decree but through a learning process.
The problem facing the establishment of a democratic post-Saddam government is that the United States despite promising democracy for Iraq, it has ruled out some outcomes such as a type of extreme Islamic government. Then, the problem is with the concept of democracy. Supposedly, in a democratic system, people are free to vote and select their preferred political leadership. Then, Iraq with its more than 60% Shiites Muslim population, offers a critical case. The point is whether Iraqis, specifically the Shiites, are pursuing the Iranian-style militant Islam promoted by Shiite Ayatollah Khomeini. Currently, if all the Shiite Muslims, who are the majority, hold a free vote, the result could produce an Islamic-oriented government with possible close ties to Iran that has an anti-American Shiite clerics governing Iran since the 1979 Islamic revolution.
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld declared in an interview to the Associated Press that the United States will not allow a religious government like Iran. The positive thing is that President George W. Bush emphasized during his speech in Michigan, that the U.S. has no intention of imposing its form of government or the American culture on Iraq but to ensure that all Iraqis have a voice in the new government.
Evidence shows that an Iraqi acceptance of a democratic government will not be a smooth transition. Recently, thousands of Iraqi Shiites, supposedly instigated by Iran, chanted "No to America, No to Saddam, Yes to Islam, instead of saying, “Thank you for liberating us" during pilgrimage rites at the holy city of Karbala.

Ironically, it was the U.S.-led coalition that allowed them to realize this pilgrimage after Hussein had forbidden it. All those thousands could not chant against Hussein while he was in power! The answer is simple. Hussein and the Baath Party would have killed them. The difference, now, is that the U.S. holds democratic beliefs and the ideology of freedom of _expression. Therefore, the coalition should highlight that Iraqis finally are exercising their democratic privilege of expressing their opinion, a benefit they didn’t have.
Although, some Iraqis are asking the U.S.-led coalition to leave Iraq, it would be an irresponsible act for the coalition to repeat the mistakes of the past. There are two options. One, the result of leaving immediately without establishing an effective government representing all Iraqis will be anarchy and extremism and a great war would result in a total waste of time and money. Elections cannot be made "impromptu" style. Before elections take place, certain institutions must be established, such as freedom of speech, liberty, freedom of assembly, freedom of political parties to participate in the electoral process, the rule of law, and respect for minorities and human rights.
Second, if the coalition stays too long, Iraqis will feel the coalition not as liberators but occupiers, and experience an anti-imperialist sentiment that might turn into terrorism against the coalition. Then, what should the U.S.-led coalition do? The coalition should make clear that they are following a plan to make a smooth transition by presenting a transparent "roadmap" to assemble the foundations of democracy in postwar Iraq.
Additionally, there is a split between Iraqis and returned Iraqi exiles about the U.S. role in an interim government. Some "former exiles" want a lesser U.S. role, arguing that only Iraqis should rule Iraq, while those who had not left Iraq prefer more U.S. supervision. The reason is that Iraqis do not trust the former exiles who now return to Iraq without a real understanding of Iraqis. Some Iraqis do not agree with the participation of Ahmad Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress. Iraqis argue that Chalabi is out of touch with real Iraqi needs. Chalabi, who comes from a wealthy Shiite family, left Iraq in 1958 when the Hashemite monarchy was overthrown.
One of the solutions is to have a strong Iraqi leader who believes and understands democratic principles and the needs of the Iraqi people. A prosperous Iraq will be the best incentive for a friendly Iraqi government. While Hussein and his closest friends enjoyed a millionaire lifestyle, the people suffered miserably. Hence, the economic factor is a powerful tool to ensure Iraqis that the U.S.-led coalition never had, and never will intend to take over Iraq’s economic resources. Now, is time for the UN lifting the sanctions to allow the Iraqis to rebuild their own prosperity. It is absurd that Iraq being the second major producer of oil experiences a poor economy. Another one is to have a "presidential council" formed by the main ethnic/religious groups to avoid the perception of not being proportionately represented. Though, it will be harder to have a consensus within a presidential council. Hence, the best solution is to elect a single secular Iraqi leader and a proportionate representation of Shiite and Sunni Muslims, Kurds, tribal chiefs, and Westernized exiles based on the democratic principles to represent the entire spectrum of Iraq.
The big question is still on the air, "what will the political future be for Iraq?" Certainly, the international community can not allow Iraq to go from Saddam to another extreme Ayatollah, or in other words to jump from the fire into the coals. The rocky road towards democracy is long, only time will tell when the road will be smooth enough.
Jo-ana D'Balcazar, M.A., Political Analyst in International Relations, specializes on the Middle East Crisis and the European Union. Send comments to politics2see@hotmail.com