Was George W. Bush Right After All?

Opponents of war in Europe have long ignored Iraq as a hopeless case. Now, elections show that democracy is making progress.

Was George W. Bush right after all? Despite terror threats, a new Iraqi parliament was elected with massive voter turnout. Local security forces handled the situation better than many had expected. In no other Arabian country would such elections, elections that really matter, have been possible, since this is a region of mock parliaments and 90 percent majorities for lifetime presidents. Now, a political process will begin in Iraq: search for majority, coalition formation, horse-trading and certainly manipulation and violence, too — but nobody can claim power with nothing but authoritarian demeanor. This is a significant achievement for political culture, a fact that has to be thought-provoking for those who defy the former U.S. president (more or less the whole world). Was the war to topple Saddam Hussein right after all? Will Bush’s brushed-aside vision of a democratic Middle East come true eventually?

Whether or not the Iraq War, a war that killed more than 10,000 people when factoring in the occupation period, was justifiable cannot be decided by only looking at its political outcome. Military interventions need more severe regulations: A war may only be waged if a war needs to be waged. Given this criteria, the expedition against Saddam was illegitimate: It was not necessary, for there was no grave danger. The ones that claimed there was (Bush and his British brother-in-arms, Tony Blair) were lying or deluding themselves. This, however, should not make us blind to the greatness and righteousness of Iraq’s democratic project. For too long, opponents of war in Europe have ignored and instinctively labeled this country a hopeless case, as if it was morally stained from Bush’s politics. An attitude like this, ignoble and short-sighted, is in need of correction. As soon as there is a new government in Baghdad (which may still take some time), Germany’s foreign secretary should take a trip there.

A major step forward in the election last Sunday was the mobilization of the Sunnis, a minor denomination that set the agenda during Saddam’s administration and afterward felt oppressed by the Shiite majority. Elections in 2005 had been ignored by the majority of Sunnis; now, turnouts around 60 percent are reported in their regions. For the first time, the whole nation is involved in a political decision-making process. Sunnis have found partners in secular Shiites who thought the old government was too pious or too close to its Iranian neighbor. A development like this can hardly be overestimated — Iraq needs political camps that can act beyond the rigid frontiers of ethnic groups. That would be real nation-building, the evolution of a real polity in this torn state.

This experiment’s success is in no way secured. Iraq remains a tormented country that cannot reliably provide its citizens with electricity, water, a legal system or security. Its democracy will not be a model for the Middle East as long as it is seen as a forced export from America and Iraq is known as occupied territory. Only after the stigma of this part of Iraq’s history, this colonial flaw, has faded, other Arabians and Muslims will be able to identify with Iraq’s experiences. It is probable that the process of acquisition has already begun: The Iraqi people themselves, not the Americans, who are withdrawn for the most part, directed the elections.

President Bush started the Iraq War for fictitious reasons and let the first years of occupation become lost time by making enormous mistakes. The disruption of Saddam’s dictatorship, however, has established a basis for improvement of the political culture, a chance for humane order, where before there was only leaden repression. It is not known if there will be a happy ending to Iraq’s horribly turbulent story. It is possible, though. And now that George W. Bush is no longer president, we all should feel free enough to accept this fact.