A similar beginning

For the first time in their lives, Iraqis will have the chance to decide the future of their own country for themselves, beginning this Sunday. Yet the violence of the recent weeks and months have sapped the observers' enthusiasm of the electoral process. \nEssentially, many observers fear this weekend's election will not be wholly democratic, as many Sunnis will likely be disenfranchised because of the violence in their provinces. Americans have come to realize that the vote won't be the panacea that allows our brave soldiers to return home.\nTherefore, when considering the upcoming election, an anxious brow -- rather than a hopeful smile -- crosses the face of many American observers of Iraq. Yet, in this moment of anguish, we can look to our own history to find hope for a peaceful Iraq.\nMany people commonly misperceive the upcoming Iraqi elections as the election of a president or a parliament; in actuality, the Iraqis will choose an assembly that will write the constitution of their nation. While watching the Iraqis vote, we should remember that the people of the 13 colonies didn't elect our Constitutional Congress; rather, the attendees were simply part of the elite of the day. \nThe diverse range of political parties in Iraq ensures their constitutional assembly will be much more representative than our own was. According to The Economist, a total of 84 parties, each with their own large list of candidates, have decided to compete in the vote. This includes major Shiite parties blessed by Ayatollah al-Sistani, Shiite-Sunni parties led by Prime Minister Allawi, and obscure parties, such as one that bases itself around Kurds who follow an ancient Roman mystery cult.\nIf undemocratically chosen elites can found the world's strongest democracy, surely the Iraqis, with an elected and much more representative constitution-drafting body, can do no less than the founders of our nation.\nBut parallels from American history do not stop there. Abraham Lincoln is correctly regarded as one of our greatest presidents, yet few know his election during the Civil War was somewhat undemocratic. The Southern states did not participate in the electoral process, yet Lincoln governed them after the war, despite their lack of participation. \nAlthough the situation in Iraq is far from a civil war -- thanks to the promotion of restraint by such Shiites as Sistani and Allawi -- the voters in the Sunni-area provinces will likely participate to a lessened degree. If our nation can recover from its greatest conflict, albeit over a long period of time, the Iraqi people can surely unify after they defeat an insurgency staffed by a small minority of the Sunni community. \nLincoln would have known how to deal with their situation. In his second inaugural address, he famously said, "with malice toward none, with charity for all ..." Simply put, had Lincoln lived, he would have included Southerners in democratic society, rather than punishing them unnecessarily. Our nation's wounds would have healed much more rapidly.\nAllawi and Sistani showed similar wisdom in reaching out to Sunnis and will likely include them in some form in the constitutional assembly. They know that revenge only begets further violence, and that they must rise above the conflict to ensure a unified and peaceful Iraq in the future. If leaders such as these emerge from Sunday's election, Iraq will have just as great a chance at building democracy as our ancestors once did. \nMy heart will be with every American soldier, Iraqi soldier, poll worker and voter this Sunday. Our nation endured the dark moments through which Iraq is now suffering, and, just as we did, they'll have the fortitude to fight for free and peaceful lives. I wish them the best of luck in their endeavor.