The most powerful Shi'ite cleric in Iraq, the Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Husaini Sistani, has abandoned his formerly apolitical stance to call for direct elections in Iraq.  Naturally, the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd has jumped right on his coattails, demanding immediate Iraqi elections.  They like to hold this up as "evidence" that a democratic Iraqi government was never President Bush's intent, since it wasn't instantly forthcoming.  (They prefer to forget that they were telling us that the Iraqis didn't want a democracy and were even so satisfied with life under Uncle Saddam that he legitimately got 100% of the vote in the last "election".  Funny how an entire nation of 25 million people can change their minds in nine short months, isn't it?)  But there's no magic wand with which to create a democratic government.  People like al-Sistani have to know that Iraq is nowhere near ready for a fair, all-inclusive election to take place.  It's likely that he believes a simple majority vote would sweep someone he could control into power.  It might even be true.  The Liberals, Bush-bashers and anti-Americans, of course, are attacking President Bush over this because... well, it's what they do.  The problem is that there are a huge number of practical questions that need to be addressed before a vote can be taken. There is simply no rational way for a legitimate full-scale election to take place by the end of June 2004.  There's a lot of problems that have to be resolved before that can happen.

The current plan (as far as I know) is still for each of the 18 governates in Iraq to elect officials to join a transitional government with the power to write a Constitution.  Doesn't that makes a lot more sense for ultimate legitimacy of the Iraqi government than having the Coalition-picked Governing Council write it?  Once the Constitution is written and ratified by the governates (who will also have to have elected officials by that time), then and only then can a legitimate general election be held. 

Before any elections can take place, a census of Iraq needs to be taken. All Iraqi citizens need to register to vote. All the voter registrations need to be verified.  Caucuses need to be held in all the governates (by 31 May 2004, according to the 15 November plan) to decide who will stand for election, then the elections need to be held to choose the members of the transitional government.  Questions need to be raised and decided such as "what will the requirements be for voter registation?" and "how will the votes be counted?"

The most important question is, "what can be realistically accomplished by the end of June?"  With the cooperation of people like al-Sistani, the November plan could be fulfilled, even with the terrorist attacks.  Without Iraqi cooperation, the process may never result in a real Iraqi government.

We helped the Iraqis by removing the tyranny of Saddam when they were unable to do so alone, but we can't hand them a replacement government and expect them to consider it legal. In order for their new government to be legitimate (in their own eyes as well as those of the world), a certain process needs to be followed. Shouldn't they have a say in the rules before they can be expected to live under them? And the Iraqis must follow it because they understand it, not because they're told to.

The most important thing that needs to be done in Iraq is not rebuilding schools and roads and power plants, it's building a democracy from the ground up. That's the real infrastructure.  It's also the biggest challenge.  Town hall meetings like the ones happening in Mosul and Baghdad are the first step in the right direction. Education in democracy and democratic processes is already happening in Iraq.

The only thing that can keep the Iraqis from having a democratic government now would be handing it to them too soon.