Iraq is hours away from holding its elections. There will, no doubt, be violence. But it will also be the most open Arab election in half-a-century and turnout will be surprisingly high. Hopefully, it will be a great moment for freedom and the long-suffering Iraqi people.

MEMRI produced this excellent summary of the major players in Iraq's election.

The leading party overall is the United Iraq Alliance which is a coalition of Shia secular and religious parties (with a smattering of Kurds and Sunnis). Grand Ayatollah Sistani brokered its founding and Ahmed Chalabi is a key player. Although it has substantial religious components, it is apparently devoted to a secular Iraq. Many foreign policy players here in DC (particularly at Foggy Bottom and Langley) have spent the better part of the last decade trying to marginalize Ahmed. One of their big criticisms of him was that as an exile he had no real support on the ground in Iraq. Now he is on the verge of coming to power in an election.

Although there have been innumerable criticisms of Ahmed (including a banking scandal in that model of commercial probity - Jordan) the real problem with Ahmed is two-fold. First, his over-riding priority was always building a free Iraq. This priority was not shared in certain segments of the DC foreign policy mandarinate. He would not be their lapdog. Second, Ahmed is brilliant - brilliant enough that he could come to Washington and outmanuever the insiders. This combination of independence and competence did not endear him to the "stability hawks" who dominate foreign policy circles.

This is a wonderful case of American foreign policy succeeding despite itself.

Had the United States backed Ahmed completely, it is possible that the reconstruction of Iraq would have gone better. But at the same time, Ahmed would have been easily criticized as an American agent. Now, having been dumped by the U.S. (undeservedly in my opinion) he will come to power as part of a popularly elected coalition. Calling him an American agent will no longer be credible. But, whatever the politics de jour Ahmed believes in liberty and democracy and will steer Iraq in that direction. He may not be an ally in lockstep with U.S. interests - but he will be a true friend who shares core American values.

Lucky U.S. and lucky Iraq.

The Washington Times ran an oped I co-authored with my friend Nir Boms urging the U.S. to press Egypt to open up its political process - particularly the upcoming Presidential elections.

On a related note, I heard a rumor from a well-placed source that Mubarak may not be the real driver in pressing for his son Gamal to succeed him. In fact it may be Gamal himself. This means that real U.S. pressure could derail the creation of a hereditary republic. Hopefully, the U.S. will take this opportunity to press for real change in Egypt.

Egypt's presidential elections
By Nir Boms and Aaron Mannes
Published January 28, 2005


With international attention focused on the Palestinian and Iraqi elections, the October presidential referendum in Egypt will be little more than a re-inauguration for President Hosni Mubarak, who seeks to regain the presidency for the fifth time and to pave the way for his son Gamal to succeed him. Yet, this time Mr. Mubarak could face a real challenger. "If given the chance, I personally want to run to break the barrier of fear and intimidation," Professor Saad al-Din Ibrahim, perhaps the Arab world's leading voice for democracy and human rights, stated. "Not that I have real hopes of success, but I want to show my fellow Egyptians that nothing should be a political taboo." An open political contest in the largest Arab nation would be an enormous advance for democracy in the Middle East. But Mr. Ibrahim will probably not get this chance, because under the Egyptian constitution the parliament nominates the sole candidate and the citizens can only approve by voting either "yes" or "no".

Mr. Mubarak has long deflected demands to enact serious political reforms by arguing that the alternatives to his regime are the Islamic extremists. Now, just as democratic transformation has become the keystone of U.S. policy in the Middle East, the 76-year-old Mr. Mubarak is attempting to follow the Syrian model of hereditary dictatorship by grooming his son Gamal as his heir. To evade this increased U.S. pressure to pursue democratic reforms, Mr. Mubarak has attempted to make himself indispensable to the American interests in the region, particularly on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, while publicly embracing calls for reform.

In September, Mr. Mubarak's ruling National Democratic Party convened under the banner of "New Thought and ReformPriorities."Gamal Mubarak, head of the party's influential policy committee, told reporters, "One-party rule is over." In his closing speech President Mubarak called for the "spread of the culture of democracy," an end to criminal sanctions for violations of the press law, and for the advisory upper house of Parliament to be granted full legislative powers.

But, according to Egyptian Parliament member Ayman Nour, "When the government talks of reform, they are addressing foreign nations." Mr. Nour's efforts to establish a new political party demonstrates the lengths the regime will go to prevent the rise of a viable opposition. Mr. Nour made several attempts to register his al-Ghad (Tomorrow) party, which calls for liberalizing Egypt's economy and politics. In September, Egypt's Political Parties Court in Cairo was scheduled to hear another appeal of several new political parties, including al-Ghad, applying for licenses to register as political groups. But most of the judges, Mubarak employees, were absent. Without a quorum, the applications were blocked without the court having to issue an outright denial.

Al-Ghad's application was finally approved on Oct.r 28. But shortly thereafter the parliament's legislative committee prevented al-Ghad from forming a parliamentary bloc. With six members of parliament committed (out of 454), al-Ghad would have become the leading opposition party. Even this tiny challenge could not be permitted under Egypt's winner-keep-all politics.

President Mubarak has a long record of disproportionate responses to such political challenges. In 2000, to prevent Mr. Ibrahim from monitoring the elections that year, he was charged with undermining Egypt's international stature and imprisoned. Mr. Ibrahim was released in 2002 after an international campaign by a coalition of human rights groups. But this time, the Egyptian regime's high-handed tactics may have backfired. Mr. Ibrahim emerged from prison even more devoted to pressing for reform and with an international profile that will focus world attention on Egypt's elections and hopefully deter blatant efforts at electoral sabotage.

One of Mr. Ibrahim's ideas is to link U.S. aid (Egypt has received over $60 billion in U.S. aid over the last quarter-century) to real democratic reforms. If the United States is truly committed to a democratic Egypt, it should follow Mr. Ibrahim's advice and use this leverage to press for open presidential elections and other real reforms. Not that the United States should endorse Mr. Ibrahim (or any other candidate for that matter) -- but it should endorse their right to dissent. An open campaign in Egypt would be a catalyst for a much-needed discussion of civil society and liberty and lay the foundations for further reform. It should also be an American objective.

Nir Boms is the vice president of the Center for Freedom in the Middle East. Aaron Mannes is the author of "Profiles in Terror: The Guide to Middle East Terrorist Organizations."