and-forth over who can and who cannot run in parliamentary elections in Iraq next month is surprisingly reminiscent of a functioning government with a separation of powers. If the election takes place without incident, Iraq may even be on its way to establishing a democracy capable of coming to terms with the nation's social and religious divisions without resorting to strong-arm rule of the type instituted by Saddam Hussein. Originally, a government committee with questionable power used evidence that has never been made public to charge that hundreds of those running for election in March had ties to the former government of Saddam Hussein and the Baathist party. Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki seemed perfectly content with the decision, especially in light of the fact that most of those banned from the election were opposed to his government. The judiciary, however, weighed in and overturned the ban. Maliki has said, nevertheless, that the ban will be in place come election day. The most significant feature of the ban is that it affects politicians who are Sunni, Shiite and non-sectarian. When Sunni candidates were discriminated against in 2005, the result was an insurgency reinvigorated with the anger of disenfranchisement. The initial ban threatened to provoke new actions against the government from all factions. The intervention of the courts, however, may result in a broad-based government that will truly represent all of the people of Iraq, be they Shiite or Sunni. If Maliki wants a government top-heavy with Shiites put there only because of their religious affiliation, he is setting himself up to mimic the worst tendencies of the Saddam Hussein regime. Many Iraqis continue to claim that the sectarian violence that swept Iraq in the wake of the US invasion was stoked by outside forces and that internally, despite the periodic flare-ups, most Iraqis chose to live in peace with one another regardless of sectarian differences. A fair election in March is one way to bring that back. __
