When the dust settled on Iraq's first free election in a half-century yesterday, people in the world will not help but ask whether the election will bring a glimmer of hope for peace to the violence-torn country.

More than 30 people were killed yesterday when suicide bombs exploded outside Baghdad polling stations.

On Saturday insurgents rocketed the US Embassy in Baghdad, killing two Americans.

Despite the violence, Iraqis were encouraged to go to the polls to choose a 275-seat Transitional National Assembly. Voters in the Kurdish-run north will also select a regional parliament.

By the end of this year, Iraqis will be expected to vote again on a permanent constitution, and to turn out once more for a general election for a formal national assembly and government.

The elections, as US President George W. Bush's administration believes, will facilitate the proceeding of the US-designed democratic process in Iraq, lend justification to its armed occupation of the country, and extricate itself from the Iraqi quagmire sooner.

Nevertheless, the current situation is far from optimistic. There is no sign that Washington is capable of guaranteeing the development of the post-election Iraqi situation in the direction drawn by itself.

While the vote will mark a new era in Iraq, it could also provoke a backlash, deepen sectarian divisions and even push Iraq closer to civil war.

One likelihood is that the Sunni Arab Muslims, for centuries the dominant political class, will be poorly represented.

Throughout the Sunni heartland, there was little enthusiasm for the election.

Sunni extremists, fearing victory by the Shi'ites, have called for a boycott, claiming no vote held under US military occupation is legitimate.

A low Sunni turnout could undermine the elected Transitional National Assembly and the government to a large extent, and worsen the tensions among the country's ethnic, religious and cultural groups.

Disenfranchised and embittered, the Sunni community, which makes up 20 per cent of the country's population, may grow even more restless when it sees victorious Shias and their Kurdish allies dominating the leadership.

This will put the country at risk of a civil war and result in anti-US forces gaining more support from the Iraqis.

The election may possibly comfort some politicians, but it is doubtful if it will open for Iraqis a window of peace.

Whatever else happens, setting a date, or at least a rough timetable, for a speedy end to the violence-plagued occupation will be crucial to restoring stability.

The longer the occupation continues, the stronger the resistance to it will grow.

Without a secure environment in which its new leadership can be elected and operate, Iraq will never be able to breathe on its own.

The picture, though, is terribly grim, the bravery of ordinary Iraqis who are prepared to take appalling risks to vote for their nation's future deserves our respect. People of goodwill can only hope that the violence is limited and the turnout large enough to grant sufficient legitimacy to the 275-member assembly so that the elections will result in a broadly representative government. This will be helpful in safeguarding Iraq's sovereignty, integrity and independence.