Through a demonstration of people power, the election leaves the Sunnis out in the cold, writes Lara Marlowe.
The turnout in Iraq's elections seems nothing short of miraculous. If European or American voters were threatened by snipers, mortars and suicide bombers, how many of us would brandish an ink-stained finger - proof to the killers that one has voted - like a badge of honour?
Certainly nowhere near the approximately 60 per cent of registered Iraqi voters who risked their lives on Sunday. The courage of Iraqis was a milestone in the history of civil disobedience. Peaceful demonstrations ended British rule in India, brought down the Berlin Wall and Slobodan Milosevic, and reversed rigged Ukrainian elections this winter. But I can't recall "people power" brazenly defying a violent insurgency.
As Le Monde notes, George W. Bush's obstinacy paid off and "it would be difficult, even indecent, to reproach him for having given free elections to the Iraqis".
The immense relief that "only" 37 people were killed in attacks on polling stations - the number of victims on an ordinary day - shows how accepting we have become of bloodshed in Iraq.
Yet it would be an error to believe the high turnout was an endorsement of US policies, or a demonstration of nationhood. The US-led occupation remains extremely unpopular, and many voters cast ballots in the hope of driving the Americans out through peaceful means. They voted along sectarian lines; not out of a sense of national unity.
UN Security Council Resolution 1546, which foresaw Sunday's election, set in motion a timetable for the "democratisation" of Iraq. In coming weeks, the members of the 275-strong assembly will choose Iraq's third interim government in less than two years.
The assembly will have six months to draft a new Iraqi constitution. The Transitional Administrative Law (TAL), supervised by the US pro-consul Paul Bremer last year, will serve as a model.
In mid-October, the constitution will be put to a referendum. Intractable issues include the status of Kirkuk, the oil-rich city which the Kurds insist is part of their autonomous region, and the place of Islam in Iraqi society. If three provinces vote against the constitution - a definite possibility for Kurds and Sunnis - the constitution will be void and it's back to square one.
The Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and the Dawa Party tried to impose Sharia as the basis of civil law during the TAL negotiations. SCIRI and Dawa formed a joint ticket called the United Iraqi Alliance, or List 169, in Sunday's poll.
These two Shia Islamist parties, both supported by Tehran, will probably be placed first, with about 40 per cent of the vote.
Once the results are announced, in approximately 10 days' time, the US will have to perform an extraordinary balancing act. Nothing in the history of the occupation indicates the US possesses the delicate touch that will be required to let the majority Shia take power, prevent them from oppressing the Sunni and Kurdish minorities and convince Iraqis that Washington is not pulling the strings; all the while fighting an insurgency that has cost more than 1,400 US lives and $230 billion.
Ambassador John Negroponte is encouraging the parties who were not on List 169 - including those of the interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, the interim President Ghazi Yawar, the former foreign minister Adnan Pachaci (who is, like Yawar, a Sunni Muslim) and the Kurdish leaders Jalal Talabani and Massoud Barzani - to form a coalition that would outnumber the Shia Islamists' simple majority.
If this happens, the religious Shia may feel robbed of their election victory. It is far from certain that they will be content to play the role of a loyal opposition, and the US could end up fighting the war with the Shia which they hoped to avoid by holding elections.
Though he is no friend of the United States, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani did the US a huge favour by reining in Sheikh Moqtada al-Sadr's "Mehdi's Army" and convincing the Shia that it was preferable to take power peacefully.
Relations with Iran and the influence of Islamic law are not the only crucial issues that divide the Shia community. The supporters of List 169, who outnumber Mr Allawi's secular Iraqi List, demand a timetable for the departure of US troops.
Since he was chosen by the Americans last June, Mr Allawi seems to have forgotten the word "interim" in his title, and his acolytes suggest he is likely to be re-elected by a coalition devised to keep the religious Shia out of power.
Resolution 1546 specified that the mandate of the multinational force in Iraq expires in January 2006, when a fourth, permanent government is to come to office, following elections next December.
In theory, the government about to be formed now could request an earlier departure.
But Mr Allawi, the Americans' man, last week stressed that the departure of US troops should be tied to events, not the calendar. This is Washington's line too. The problem is that the presence of 150,000 US troops is feeding the insurgency, and Mr Bush says the troops cannot leave until the insurgency is vanquished.
A timetable based on the military situation would reinforce a widespread conspiracy theory in Iraq and the Arab world: that the US propagates violence so it will have an excuse to stay in Iraq.
So far, the US has largely adopted the attitude of Shia and Kurdish Iraqis that the Sunni Arabs are sore losers, who refuse to relinquish the power they had under Saddam. There is an element of truth to the allegation, but it doesn't solve the Sunni problem.
After the low Sunni turnout on Sunday, if Sunnis are nominated to fill seats in the new assembly, they will be seen as US stooges. But leaving the Sunnis the sole option of sabotaging the constitution next October is not sufficient.
The head of Iraqi intelligence recently estimated that 200,000 people actively support the insurrection; you can be sure most are Sunnis. If Iraq is ever to be peaceful, a way must be found to draw the Sunnis into the political process.