The political process in Iraq

This article by Laith Kubba exhibits some of that balance which the Guardian very much lost in its approach to Iraq:

Since the end of the war on May 1, Iraq has taken many strides towards normalcy and self-governance. Iraqis now enjoy freedom of expression and association, more representation at local level, better health services and higher incomes.

The country has also passed three crucial milestones. After months of wrangling, the US-run Coalition Provincial Authority committed itself to ending the occupation and handing Iraq's sovereignty to an interim national assembly by the end of June; second, international donors pledged over $30bn to help rebuild Iraq; and third, Saddam has been arrested and his two sons killed.

Yet, such progress is overshadowed by rising political violence and lack of security. Only an inclusive political process can get the Sunni tribes plugged into the future of Iraq and out of the growing insurgency. Meanwhile, Iraq must rebuild its institutions - in particular, its police, intelligence and army. This can only be achieved by a national government and a legitimate political process.

In connection with the latter, Kubba goes on to argue:

Elections by June 30 are rejected on three grounds: that there is insufficient time to register voters; that there are threats of violence; and that a rushed election would risk bringing in former regime leaders, militants and religious extremists. However, direct elections, even if rushed and imperfect, would offer Iraq a more legitimate and representative transitional assembly than that which would result from the November agreement.

Read the rest.