Hard question, few answers
It's nice that some Iraqis are optimistic about the upcoming election. But let's not forget that an election is only a process, a means toward establishing a governing order. Implicit in the trust that people invest in election is that those who they elect are capable of good governance and policymaking.
Has anyone given much thought to who the candidates are? And their qualifications? An election isn't a magic bullet that guarantees a subsequent period of good governance. I refer G2K list members to a problem that my native India encounters every five years, at the beginning of a new election cycle: How to find qualified candidates? In the 575-member Lok Sabha, the Lower House of parliament, some 75 percent of lawmakers have had criminal records; a member of the Indian cabinet -- which is drawn from the majority coalition in parliament, under Westminster rules -- has actually been convicted of homicide. Are all these legislators fit to govern?
Or do we simply end up accepting the reality that once a society opts to go the "democratic route," then its denizens must make do with the legislators they elect. To put it another way, does a society truly get the lawmakers it deserves? Don't 1.2 billion Indians deserve better than a bunch of felons and hooligans in parliament feasting off the national treasury? Don't Iraqis deserve -- well, what do they deserve?