While I do not know whether Hashemi is guilty of supporting terrorists. It is quite possible he did or that he tolerated staff members who supported terrorists. It's also possible that the charges are false. I suspect the former rather than the latter, but without a fair trial how am I to know? how are Iraqis to know?
While that issue is provoking uncertainty, a bigger test for building democracy in Iraq may be looming:
Four of the most senior political leaders in Iraq's fragile coalition have threatened to bring a vote of no confidence in the government unless "autocratic decision-making" stops, a letter published in a state newspaper on Saturday said. ...
The four senior lawmakers - Osama al-Nujaifi, Masoud Barzani, Iyad Allawi and Moqtada al-Sadr - sent the letter to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's bloc on Thursday, political sources told Reuters.
Some of Maliki's opponents, including Barzani and Sadr, have accused him of becoming a dictator and several of his critics say he deliberately sidelines Sunnis and Kurds.
The letter outlines eight demands to be met by May 13 to ensure the four leaders' support for Maliki's administration.
"In case of a refusal to comply with the principles and frameworks of this agreement, practical steps will be taken, within a period of time not exceeding 15 days, to act upon a vote of no confidence against the government," the letter says.
If there is a no-confidence vote and Maliki loses, he needs to hand over power in accordance with Iraqi laws. We will have made a real step toward democracy if Maliki responds as Sarkozy did when asked what he would do if he lost the election:
Asked Friday what he would do if he loses, Sarkozy said simply: "There will be a handover of power."
"The nation follows its course. The nation is stronger than the destiny of the men who serve it," he said.
That is the key to democracy, is it not? That the nation--and the laws that guide it--are stronger than the men who serve it?
Of course, the danger is that Maliki could believe the nation is stronger while any of the four who challenge his rule believe he is stronger than rule of law.
Do you understand why I don't want Iraqis practicing democracy without a safety net of our troops who can slap down coup leaders at the side of Iraqi forces loyal to the nation and not any man?
And rule of law is key to prosperity, too. Note this description of Argentina's sad history in the 20th century:
If you want a one-word answer to the question “Why isn’t Argentina rich?” your best bet is coups. Between 1930 (when, only a year after Black Thursday, Argentina’s future may have looked even brighter than America’s) and 1976, Argentina endured at least six. Until 1930, its per capita GDP had closely tracked that of countries like New Zealand, Australia, and Canada. But constant political instability in the decades that followed threw Argentina off track. The reasons are basic: When a country is unstable, it is risky to make the long-term investments required for growth. When dictators and oligarchs use the economy to reward their friends and punish their enemies, markets can’t guide the structural evolution and modernization of the economy. Political revolutions leave a country economically retrograde. By 2000, Argentina’s per capita GDP was about a quarter of that of Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. It had largely missed the boat of the 20th century’s spectacular growth.
Will this be the future of Iraq, too, in the 21st century? Oil exports won't make up for lack of rule of law. It will just make sure that some are immensely wealthy in a poverty-stricken Iraq.
Both we and the Iraqis will regret our failure to keep American troops in Iraq after last year to defend what we gained at such a cost in blood and treasure in Iraq. Maybe things will work out fine, anyway. But I can't help but fear we've reduced the odds of things working out fine.
