During his visits to the United Nations, the White House and the Capitol Building, the Iraqi Prime Minister, Iyad Allawi, announced that elections in Iraq would be held next January. Holding elections is demanded by major Iraqi political groups and has been taken to be a milestone of "political progress" by the US- administration and the US -appointed transitional government in Iraq. However, the history of the country indicates the possibility of increasing political and security instability, a point further enforced by the recent waves of violence in the country.

Mr. Allawi thanked President Bush and the American people for what they have done for Iraq since March 2003. He sounded optimistic while he was standing before a joint session of the U.S. Congress on September 23, 2004. However, Mr. Allawi's report on the administration and political progress in Iraq should be examined carefully before being believed. It is possible that he is simply returning a favor to the Bush Administration, the group that put him in power. Just a few months ago, US officials complained that the information about the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and the Iraqi public's attitude toward the invasion were false. However, they seem to forget that much of the information was being provided by US-supported Iraqi opposition groups, such as the one Mr. Allawi was a part of.

Elections are needed to restore a democratic government in Iraq. The Iraqi Kurds came to the same conclusion after the 1991 Gulf War. By the fall of 1991, Saddam's government forces and personnel withdrew from the region, creating an administrative vacuum. Kurdish political parties were under an umbrella organization called the Iraqi Kurdistan Front. The Front agreed to fill the vacuum by holding elections in May 1992. The elections took place and two Kurdish political parties, the Kurdistan Democratic Party and Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, gained the majority of votes. They agreed to split power 50-50. When they disagreed in 1995-96, they fought each other ruthlessly and finally divided Kurdistan into two areas, each ruled by one party. In that process, they brought Iran, Saddam, and Turkey into the political stage. A peaceful settlement was achieved by 1998 after repeated pressure from the Clinton Administration. The 1992 elections were the only national elections that have taken place in Kurdistan.

The Iraqis who were liberated in March-April 2003 have the same conclusion as the Kurds. Based on my discussions with about two dozens educators and civil rights activists in the summer of 2003, they were optimistic about the future. They were talking about a better economy and a democratic government in Iraq. Some people criticized the appointment of the Governing Council by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) on July 13, 2003, since the majority of the members were part of the occupation/liberation forces. Nevertheless, the Council was viewed as a temporary situation that would be eliminated when elections would take place. The majority of people denounced violence and agreed with the CPA in labeling the insurgents as being "pro-Saddam" forces. The number of insurgents was limited, estimated to be 5000 persons.

In the summer of 2004, I visited Iraq again. This time, I met with representatives of non-government organizations from different cities in central and southern Iraq. They were pessimistic. Some mentioned that US-supported political parties had benefited financially and politically during the one-year period. One senior human rights activist compared the political parties to a "mafia".

Iraqis are confused between the importance of the elections as the first step toward correcting the political situation in Iraq and between the possible outcomes of the elections It is believed by some that the elections might be used to legitimize the present political set-up and/or lead to the establishment of another "oppressive regime". They are concerned that some groups will be excluded from the elections and that the excluded groups may lead political and military resistance against the elected government. Furthermore, if the US-supported political parties win the elections and then compete with each other, similar to what did happen in the Kurdish region in the 1990s, then Iraq might split into four regional powers (center, north, south, and west).

For many Iraqis, democracy means a good justice system, no monopoly over power, separation between political loyalty and the government, no corruption, and free media. Therefore, the elections should bring to power good people who will implement these values. Thus, at the present time, the notion of democracy is still a romantic ideal but unachievable in Iraq.

Americans were misinformed on Iraq during the last few years. Therefore, several issues were misjudged. The administration should examine the possible outcomes of elections before insisting to support the process. After 18 months of US rule, Iraq is far from stability and even further from becoming a democratic nation.