?Its true we have freedom, Mr. Sharaa said, ?but what do we have beyond it?

?Wheres the law, wheres the state, wheres the sense of citizenship?

Mr. Sharaas question resonates as Iraq heads toward elections on Sunday, perhaps its most decisive moment since Mr. Husseins statue was toppled in Firdos Square in 2003. Under American charge, an indisputable political culture has risen along the banks of the Tigris River, unparalleled in the rest of the Arab world.

Advertisement

But elections often exacerbate rather than bridge divisions. And as the United States military withdraws this year, Iraqis have begun to ask whether their state ? divided, feeble and corrupt ? can navigate the votes results in a country still plagued by the miseries of war, the legacy of Mr. Husseins rule and a calculus that celebrates the victors claiming the spoils of the vanquished.

In that, the elections may be a cautionary lesson, as politicians struggle to cobble together a coalition to rule. Iraqs politics are more vibrant than the institutions meant to gird them, threatening the support of the people they have enfranchised and a nascent, if flawed democratic experiment that has yet to take root.

?We have failed to build a state of institutions, of law and order, said Wael Abdel-Latif, a lawmaker and opposition candidate. ?Our institutions are based on ideological, sectarian and ethnic foundations. They are dangerous, they are shaky and they could collapse at any moment, especially if it takes a long time to form a new government.

Since that day in Firdos Square, Iraq has often served as a contest of competing narratives. Elections, with their visuals of ink-stained fingers, have emerged as a centerpiece. But their legacy has proved more equivocal. One vote helped unleash a civil war; another approved a Constitution deemed flawed by nearly everyone. In the prelude to this vote, politicians have recklessly deployed the state ? the law, courts and military ? to settle scores and further their sometimes demagogic ambitions.

Rarely will anyone defend what has been built. Even Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki calls the system unworkable, though he blames his opponents for making it so.

For many, the problem rests in the very notion of how to organize those fledgling institutions in a country ruled by a succession of kings, strongmen, dictatorial parties and, finally, the Americans. To hold the state together, the government operates by consensus in a country that lacks one, forcing politicians to postpone decisions into an uncertain future on the most pressing issues ? from a national census to disputed territories.

?Iraq has proven under U.S. tutelage that it can organize elections and develop this political culture, and that is encouraging, said Joost Hilterman of the International Crisis Group. ?But Ive still seen no evidence that any government can govern.

Abdullah Jabbar thought about that judgment as he sat at his clothing store in Kahramana Square, festooned with posters for some of the nearly 6,200 candidates vying for Parliaments 325 seats. Like many these days, he expressed a mix of optimistic pride and savvy cynicism at a campaign that has flourished in the past month. No one can avoid it, he said, neither the text messages on cellphones nor the candidates debates on television.

?Its like a soccer match and this is the roar of the crowd, he said.

Iraqs sectarianism still shapes the election. A Sunni vice president appeals to ?our people, and Shiite candidates speak of guarding ?our rights. Three judges in Mr. Husseins trial are candidates, one boasting he ?carried out the judgment of God and the people. But the most chauvinistic language is often tempered by ambiguity, a far cry from the last election in 2005, and in Kahramana and elsewhere, politics have matured.