With the remarkable overthrow of Bashar al-Assad in Syria by a group of rebels led by Ahmed al-Sharaa, American officials are scrambling for a strategy. The U.S. is rightly reaching out to al-Sharaa, hoping that, despite his jihadist roots, the relatively tolerant mini-state that he recently led in northern Syria augurs well for a future national government that eschews extremism and violence.

Some are also already clamoring for early elections as proof that al-Sharaa will be inclusive in his future government style, allowing roles not just for his fellow Sunnis from the north, but also Kurds, Christians, Alawites and others in Syria’s complex ethnic and sectarian tapestry.

But early elections could be a mistake. Inclusivity and moderation are indeed immediate priorities for Syria, but a big national vote is not. Democracy does not itself guarantee peace in a country so recently riven by autocratic rule and a long civil war.

Even more to the point, elections — even reasonably free and fair ones — do not guarantee democracy. As our own Founding Fathers understood but we often seem to forget, real democracy requires checks and balances on any branch of government or ruling party, together with a strong legal system providing protection for the rights of the individual.

Take post-Saddam Hussein Iraq as a case in point. After the Iraqi dictator was overthrown by a U.S.-led coalition in 2003, President George W. Bush asked Ambassador Paul Bremer to act as Iraq’s leader for a year, during which time he would oversee creation of a broadly representative Iraqi Governing Council that would provide at least a patina of homegrown rule during the American-led occupation period. Then, the U.S. and partners would turn over power to a temporary Iraqi government in mid-2004. Three rounds of elections would follow in 2005: The first to select an interim Iraqi government, the second to approve a constitution and the third to choose a........

© The Hill