Nicole Szulc Ginn: Remember Afghanistan, remember Kosovo and Bosnia

Democracy's the endgame but the rule of law must come first

Sunday 13 April 2003 00:00 BST
Comments

The initial expressions of joy at the sudden collapse of Saddam Hussein's government have given way to a power vacuum in Iraq and lawlessness in its cities. The scenes of looting and violence make one wonder how military planners did not predict them. Coalition leaders must think hard not only about their immediate response, but what this portends for the future.

President George Bush previously agreed that the United Nations has a vital role to play, and that a wide array of anti-Saddam Iraqis should be invited to participate in an interim administration until a new and elected government comes along. Such concessions would appear to be the result in no small part of Tony Blair's persuasion. But he should not rest on his laurels. Before the shards of Saddam statues were even pocketed by jubilant Iraqis, Washington was already backtracking on UN involvement, and the pool of acceptable Iraqi opposition figures was narrowing. Even beyond that, however, Mr Blair has a lot more convincing left to do if lessons are to be learnt from Afghanistan, Kosovo and Bosnia.

The Prime Minister is probably finding out that, left to their own devices, the Americans will try to install a regime that looks good from the outside, and then move on to greener pastures – or to invade another country. President Bush talks a good game about the liberation of Iraq, and how Saddam's regime must be replaced with a democratic one, without seeming to understand the enormity of that process. The US has little patience: that may be truer of Mr Bush and his neo-conservatives, but it is a national trait.

There is a real danger that Jay Garner, who will direct the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance in Iraq, will come in with his team, get the electrical grids and oilfields working, and announce a date for elections. From that moment on, all minds and energies will be focused on that objective. They will say that only through elections can the political factions sort out genuine representation, and then get down to governing. Millions will then be spent on this endeavour, while more pressing needs are shunted to one side.

But elections are not a panacea for all the problems the new Iraq will confront, and perhaps should not be the first priority. After decades of totalitarian and vicious one-party rule, there is no rule of law. The first step in a democratic transformation is legal reform and the creation of an independent civilian police force and judiciary. The old system must be replaced root and branch, and an interim system must be created to maintain law and order. In a recent interview, Lord Ashdown, now the High Representative in Bosnia, was asked what lessons could be learnt from Bosnia and applied to Iraq. He said that the rule of law had to be addressed first. The UN and the EU, aided by various NGOs, have experience in this area.

Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak warned that this conflict could spawn a hundred Bin Ladens. A key concern will be the growth of fundamentalism as a springboard to terrorism. And again there will be an American temptation to go for the quick fix – specifically creating political parties and figures that appear to reject fundamentalism. But surely instability and lawlessness, coupled with economic deprivation, are the factors most responsible for that. So a country that works properly is crucial.

Iraqis have to start talking to each other again too. There are various political factions in exile who have been bickering for years. Who knows how those who endured Saddam Hussein's regime in silence will welcome them? And shouldn't the internal opposition be given a chance to flourish in a new atmosphere of freedom? How does one distinguish zealous Baathists from those who paid lip-service to "The Power" just to survive? Furthermore, new political figures that are free from old dogmas should be encouraged. And that needs time.

The scourge of any civil society-building mission is a hard-and-fast timetable. Planners and pundits are wondering if the interim period should be three months or longer. Deadlines are rarely adhered to, inevitably obey domestic political agendas and become the focus of the operation. It will take as long as it takes.

This is not to say that free and transparent elections in the near future are a bad idea. But as we discovered in Bosnia, where the Dayton Peace Agreement stated that elections had to be held within nine months of its signing, they tend to become an end in themselves, when pushed to the top of the agenda. If you're going to change a regime, you have to help build the one you want to put in its place. Elections should not be the first step, but rather the culmination of a process. And that takes time, finesse and infinite patience. And many players.

Mr Blair had a job persuading the Bush administration to go down the UN route, and is probably responsible for delaying the war. But this task is bigger. He must convince Mr Bush to proceed with some delicacy and vision: the development of the rule of law, strengthening of the civil society and administration, and a strong economic programme. Once those are in train, and a lively political culture has been born, then call an election. It must be done with the help of many organisations and governments. In other words, nation-building.

Nicole Szulc Ginn worked for the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe Mission to Bosnia-Herzegovina from 1996-99

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in