This election is neither free nor fair, but it gives Iraq its best chance

The world has seen some strange elections in some dangerous places, but few have been stranger or more fraught with risk than the elections that will take place in Iraq tomorrow.

The world has seen some strange elections in some dangerous places, but few have been stranger or more fraught with risk than the elections that will take place in Iraq tomorrow.

Iraq is an occupied country with a spreading insurgency. It is a country sharply divided along ethnic and religious lines; a country where, across wide swathes of territory, the writ of government and law does not run. It is a country where sections of one religious group, the Sunni, have ordered people not to go near a polling station on pain of death, and where leaders of another - the Shia - have instructed their adherents that to vote is their religious duty. Casting a vote at all will thus be a political statement of a kind. In many places, it will also be a mark of personal courage that almost defies belief.

For months now, it has been acknowledged by all involved that these elections will be far from perfect. There are strict curbs on movement; a curfew is in force; Iraq's borders have been closed. Bombings and threats will deter many from taking part. Voting is likely to be along religious and ethnic grounds, with whole sections and regions choosing not to take part. The resulting assembly, which is supposed to produce a prime minister, nominate a government and draft a constitution, could be perilously unrepresentative unless it can somehow be adjusted or supplemented afterwards. Turnout and voting patterns will be as telling as the actual result. This will be very far from the representative democracy that the US and British held up to Iraqis as one of the objectives - and benefits - of the war.

It is no use arguing in mitigation that things are really not so bad; that the US and British forces operate in Iraq at the behest of the interim Iraqi government, backed by a UN Security Council resolution. Despite the much-vaunted transfer of sovereignty last summer, the reality is that the foreign forces are still occupiers who stormed into Iraq uninvited; their presence is resented and accompanied by increasing mayhem. But it is no use arguing either that the elections should have been delayed. With Iraq already teetering on the brink of civil war, there is no guarantee whatever that the resistance will die down within another election-less year; the greater likelihood is that it could grow.

The more convincing argument is that elections should have been held long ago: as soon after the invasion as it was possible to organise the basic accoutrements of an election. Fine words about the need for time to conduct a census, register voters, organise political parties and the rest were never acted upon. In the event, the electoral rolls have been compiled, as they could have been months ago, on the basis of the old regime's ration cards. In the interim, security has only grown worse. The promise of a swift advance to democracy was betrayed.

Amid so much disillusionment, the ferocious intent of insurgents of all stripes to disrupt the elections is hardly surprising. Their fear is that elections, even inadequate ones, will be used to sanction a longer occupation and establish a pro-US puppet government in power. Such a course of events would not be without precedent. And there is a school of thought in this country, too, which finds support for the elections totally incompatible with opposition to the war. According to this view, the illegality of the war and the iniquities of the occupation take precedence over all other considerations: the troops should be withdrawn forthwith and let Iraq cope as it may. We disagree.

These elections - even under occupation, the freest for half a century - give Iraqis a chance. It is perhaps their only chance for now to determine their own future. We could certainly have hoped that the circumstances would have been more propitious. Imagine how it might have been if Iraqis had toppled Saddam Hussein themselves. Imagine how it might have been if the Iraqi army had not been disbanded on the orders of a newly arrived American viceroy, but stripped of its Baathist politics and deployed at once to enforce law and order. Imagine how it might have been if the US and British had honoured their undertakings to ensure reliable supplies of water and electricity from the first month. Imagine, too, that Iraqi voters could go to vote tomorrow without risking their lives. We can imagine to infinity. But this is not what has happened.

Waging war on Iraq was a terrible mistake and a catastrophic misjudgement for which the political leaders in the United States and in this country must still answer. And whatever the suffering of Iraqis under Saddam Hussein, it is not at all apparent that their lives are significantly better now. Just in the past month, much of Baghdad has been without running water for days on end; power cuts are frequent; the illegal trade in smuggled oil continues. It is also incontestable that an election held under occupation, amid great physical danger, is not "free and fair". But this is an election, and it will earn its credibility by the number of voters and regions that take part. It is our belief that the more Iraqis show their determination to take charge of their country, the sooner the occupation will end.