First, it provides a salutary warning to Iraqis. Most Iraqis, even those in the Shiite religious establishment, say they don’t want a formal rule of clerics as in Tehran. But in Iraq, there is a debate over whether Islam should be the chief source of law in an interim constitution, rather than "a source of inspiration for law," as the wording goes in the current draft. Paul Bremer, the U.S. czar in Baghdad, has said he will block any effort to make Islamic law the basis of the temporary constitution. But eventually Iraqis will write a permanent constitution without U.S. control. I have talked to moderate Iraqi Shiite clerics who espouse democracy but see no problem with making Islam the main source of all laws. They also want some sort of Council of Guardians to vet the laws of parliament and ensure that they comply with God’s law. That slippery slope would ultimately give unelected imams control over elected legislators. Down that path lies another variant of Iran’s clerical rule.
If this happens Iraq has wasted a great opportunity.

A second reason the elections are important is that they show the impossibility of combining Islam and democracy if the constitution enshrines clerical power. Iran’s Khatami still doesn’t see the contradiction. He is still urging Iranians to vote. "Our people need and desire a democracy compatible with our religious and cultural values," Khatami said at Davos. "The problem is not the constitution," he insisted. "What is necessary is a progressive interpretation of the constitution."
Khatami still doesn’t get it.
But a constitution that gives unchecked power to one group -- be it clerics or a shah -- can’t be compatible with democracy. Friday’s election will lay this bare.