Viewed against a backdrop of the constant claims by the lying/smearing/torturing Bushies that the unprovoked invasion and occupation of Iraq was designed to promote "democracy," what is to be made of the U.S.'s intervention in the ongoing deadlock in the selection of a prime minister as a result of the election nearly 4 months ago? Today, Secretary Rice and Foreign Minister Jack Straw, following on the heels of earlier efforts by Zalmad Khalilzad, directly intervened in the de novo constitutional process by urging/pressuring Ibrahim al-Jaafari to withdraw from consideration as prime minister. Al-Jaafari had earlier been nominated as the prime minister-designee by the largest party in the new parliament, by one vote over Adel Abdul Mahdi. In addition to the diplomatic efforts, the right wing news media have been quite critical of al-Jaafari in recent days.
[For more, read on - same bat time, same bat channel].
The criticisms of al-Jaafari are numerous: (1) he is allegedly "weak;" (2) he is supported by Moqtada al Sadr; (3) he only won nomination by one vote in a party election in which fraud/intimidation was alleged after the expected (and presumably American-supported) winner - Mahdi - was defeated; (4) he has been unable to form a government for nearly four months and the informal deadline of April 30 is looming; (5) he has minimal support in the Kurdish and Sunni Triangle communities and, perhaps most importantly (6) Bush has decided that he doesn't want al-Jaafari. Rice/Straw today had a tense meeting with al-Jaafari in which it was communicated to him the American preference of him sacrificing himself by relinquishing the nomination.
On the other hand, under the new as-yet-unamended Iraqi Constitution, the constitutional processes have been followed and the democratic result, both in the general election and in the United Iraqi Alliance party's leadership selection process, was the emergence of al Jaafari as the democratically-selected leader of the largest party bloc. Under the "normal" Constitutional process, al Jaafari is entitled to form a government - which must (at least initially) have 2/3rd's approval in the Parliament.
So the question is - should the U.S. be intervening?? This is not a potential "tactical" mistake - it is a strategic decision to blatantly intervene in the democratic process to achieve a desired outcome. And the Bushies aren't just going about it informally, it's been all over the right wing media for 2-3 days now. There is no doubt that the American message has been delivered and al Jaafari is now making up his mind how to respond (so far, at least, has has been defiant). Is this the democracy that we are trying to protect and build?? Throwing out democratic results when we don't like them?? Doesn't it undermine the argument for "democratization" of the region when, in actual practice, we do not pursue it??
To me, this is reminiscent of the Vietnam elections in which the U.S. would periodically intervene - disqualifying Vice President Ky from running against President Thieu in the late 60's or fomenting/encouraging constant coup attempts in the early 60's (one of which resulted in the assassination of President Diem). One of the more pathetic aspects of American policy then was the constant undermining of the legitimacy of the South Vietnamese government.
Of all of the various arguments that the Bushies made in the lead-up to the war, the only one to survive thus far has been the Wilsonian-like paean to democracy. But Wilson (except for perhaps the Philippines, Puerto Rico and the Canal Zone and possibly Nicaragua and Haiti), never really intervened in the internal democratic affairs of nation-states after the democratic process had produced a result. Is the Bush policy really democratization?? Or is more faux democratization??
Where are the great success stories now?? Belarus, supported by Russia, has just had an authoritarian sham of an election. Russia canceled all gubernatiorial elections. The much heralded democracy in Egypt is really only in its infancy.
I could be wrong, but I am of the view that the Bushies are compounding their errors by intervening in the process thereby undermining their rhetorical democratic-promoting flourishes and rendering their overall policy even more hypocritical than it has been before. I have no brief for al-Jaafari, I would probably never vote for him and I am certainly willing to concede that another candidate might be a better selection (in American eyes), but, in the interest of "democracy," I deeply resent my government's efforts to override his democratic selection.