Direct Elections Later or Now for Iraq?

In “Give Iraqis the Election They Want” (Commentary, Jan. 20), Robert Scheer expressed a foolish impatience to hold elections that, ironically, could be exceptionally harmful to the democratic principles he advocates. Many Iraqis are well educated, but the general population has no cultural tradition in Western democracy. History tells us that, frequently, individuals with absolutist intentions, as many currently thirsting for power in Iraq have, will exploit elections to legitimize their power and then eliminate democracy.

Similar to the Taliban, some fundamentalist Shiite Muslims in Iraq have already begun a war on civil liberties, including women’s rights. Could this be the “tyranny of the majority” that James Madison warned us against? It’s hard to tell, and that’s the point. While it might be politically expedient to have elections immediately, until we really know the most prudent steps to take, it’s best to be patient and allow the people of Iraq to have the fairest election possible under the circumstances.

Scott D. Allen

Santa Monica

*

Scheer is absolutely correct. With the reasons for the invasion of Iraq questionable at best (no weapons of mass destruction, no apparent ties to Al Qaeda), the two “bigs” on President Bush’s agenda changed to capturing Saddam Hussein and planting democracy. Hussein is in protective custody. The administration wants to have a democratic vote, but only if Bush OKs it. Bush should step out of Iraq’s election and see if Iraqis’ votes can be counted correctly.

Tim Ashford

Lomita