Rejoice, rejoice - there has been an explosion of democracy in Iraq

Political parties - now the object of such cynicism in supposedly advanced democracies - are flowering in every Baghdad tea-house

And now for the good news from Iraq. The gung-ho conservative press is now only interested in the Iraqi people as bad news: either they are mutating into evil, money-grabbing asylum-seekers as they cross the Channel, or they stay at home and become looting thugs. (Very occasionally, they are allowed to be pitiful victims for a moment – see Tragic Ali.) This is partly prejudice; but mostly, it's just that good news is considered less newsworthy.

So you may not have heard that yesterday, all the different ethnic groups in Mosul (who should, according to the Galloway-Saddam anti-war script, be descending into civil war by now) co-operated to hold an election for a city mayor and two dozen city councillors. Major-General David Patraeus, a commander on the ground, describes the situation (which independent reporters have verified): "So far, by and large, the various factions have co-operated. Virtually all of them were united against Saddam Hussein and virtually all are now united in trying to help Mosul and Iraq try to make the most of the opportunity they now have." Of course it isn't easy: Saddam wasn't exactly scrupulous about maintaining an up-to-date electoral register, for example – but every group is co-operating to overcome these problems.

This is only one example of what even one of Britain's most anti-war newspapers describes as "an explosion of democracy... since the fall of Saddam." Political parties – now the object of such cynicism in supposedly advanced democracies – are flowering in every Baghdad tea-house, it seems. From communists to social democrats to al-Dawa (who want an Islamic fundamentalist state), the dams that restricted freedom of speech have burst.

And in case you still doubt that the Iraqi people wanted the month-long war which has now passed, you should take a look at the first-ever scientifically-conducted opinion poll of the Iraqi people by the prestigious Indian network, NDTV (New Delhi Television). Although the Iraqis are divided about what the Americans should now do (52 per cent say they should go soon, 43 per cent say they should stay on), there was a weighty majority in favour of the US-British invasion. Anti-war voices often said before the war, "Of course the Iraqi people would like someone to remove Saddam, but not the the Americans and Brits because... etc." They have now been proved wrong. Of a representative sample of Iraqis, asked last week, "Was the US-led war to remove Saddam correct?", 54 per cent said yes; only 32 per cent said no. So if you opposed the war, no matter how benevolent your motives, you opposed the Iraqi people and their clear will. Why are so few of you repenting?

But – whatever your stance towards the war has been – there are a number of causes which, surely, all people concerned for the wellbeing of Iraqis can now unite behind. The simplistic slogan adopted by the Socialist Workers and their pro-Trotsky ilk – "Stop the Occupation" – is not especially helpful. Withdrawing before stability has been restored and democratic structures are in place would probably be a bad idea. A more detailed and nuanced agenda needs to be formulated, which pro-Iraqi Westerners can lobby their governments to implement.

Its first demand should be the cancellation of Iraq's national debt. It would be nothing short of outrageous if – as international financial institutions and the US government seem to be expecting – the Iraqi people were expected to pick up the $200bn tab for their own repression and torture. The British government has been at the forefront of arguing for the cancellation of Third World debt, following pressure from the Jubilee 2000 campaign. They must assume that mantle once more, and not just in Iraq.

Secondly, there can be no question of "deals" for Baathist tyrants to live out their retirement in Surrey or Saudi. The organisation Indict (which you can support at www.indict.org.uk) is campaigning for a war-crimes tribunal at The Hague for the Baathist leadership. It seems, shockingly, that the coalition is currently negotiating the surrender of people such as Tariq Aziz, offering clemency and other inducements. These murderers should no more be bargained with than Rose West, and slaughtered Iraqis are worth no less than slaughtered residents of Gloucester. They should be hunted down and punished.

Thirdly, we should be opposed to the attempts by Iran's anti-democratic mullahs to gain influence in Iraq. Granted, much of the anxiety about Iraq becoming a mullocracy with full sharia law has been overblown. Of course the majority population of Iraq are Shia, but it requires extraordinary ignorance of Shia history to presume that the only political manifestation of Shia faith is Khomeinism. In Iran itself, rule by the mullahs is almost totally discredited. The Iranian people have persistently elected President Mohammed Khatami, who wants to establish a dialogue with the US, open up Iran to Western influences, and curb the rule of the clerics.

The fact that the mullahs keep reining Khatami in has led many experts on Iran to expect a pro-Western revolution there soon, especially if Khatami quits out of frustration. Le Monde (hardly a font of pro-US propaganda) reported last week that Iranian officials are worried about the "solid pro-Americanism" of the Iranian people, and that – with a new pro-American neighbour – they might enact revolutionary change. This is heartening evidence that the second Gulf War is already helping to spread democracy throughout the region – exactly the kind of "destabilisation" that we should all hope for. Let's hope Egypt is next.

It would be bizarre, then, if the Shia of Iraq adopted the Iranian model just as it became thoroughly discredited in the eyes of the Iranian people themselves – but that is exactly what Iran's flagging mullahs are agitating for. It is likely they will fail: most Iraqi Shia clerics always considered the Khomeini revolution to be an act of blasphemy anyway, since it handed divine powers to an earthly ruler.

The Khomeini model – which Iranian agents have been proselytising for in the post-Saddam vacuum – was in fact a radical break with Shia history. Previously, Shia clerics had avoided temporal power and co-operated with existing leaders; there is every reason to believe that this sensible model will prevail in Iraq once tempers cool. But nobody in the West should hope for them to prevail just so the US-led effort to democratise the Middle East is discredited; Iran's agents are the enemies of Iraqi democracy, and the Iranian mullahs should be threatened with serious repercussions if they don't butt out.

So: by all means take note of the bad news from Iraq. Please donate to the excellent Red Cross campaign (www.redcross.org.uk) to meet the immediate medical needs of the Iraqi people. But don't succumb to despair just because the dramatic bad headlines you see every day are more compelling than the incremental, plodding good news that too often goes unreported.

j.hari@independent.co.uk