As I see it, Iraqis have three choices this year:

• Proceed with the elections scheduled for Jan. 30, and begin the long transition to a more representative system.
• Succumb to fear, postpone the elections and allow extremists greater sway.
• Provoke a full-fledged civil war, and watch their country — and the surrounding region — slide into unprecedented chaos.

Although I recognize how difficult it will be for Iraqis to hold elections this month, I believe a vote is the essential next step away from Saddam Hussein’s legacy.

Yes, I can already hear critics saying, “How would you like to go to the polls under such conditions, with bombs exploding and bullets flying, with your own life possibly on the line?”

I would not. But let’s place this situation into the proper context, that of the current environment vs. the universal system of fear, intimidation, torture and death that prevailed under Saddam.

He and his henchmen stopped at nothing to impose their transnational, revolutionary vision, choosing violence to guarantee their survival and obliterate existing and potential opponents. In the end, they established what some have described as a brutal form of ordered society — albeit fragmented and cowed — suggesting that stability can emerge in Iraq, but at a price.

That’s not the kind of order I cherish, but it is precisely what current purveyors of violence in Iraq seek. If I were an Iraqi, I would defy the new would-be tyrants, calm my fears and do my part to erase Saddam’s notorious imprint. My hope is that the elections will give the largely quiet majority a chance to speak loudly; ideally, most eligible voters will take part.

It is also important to note that the violence Americans read and hear about — from fighting that contributes to a growing number of U.S. casualties to the recent killing of Ali al-Haidari, the Baghdad provincial government — affects a relatively small percentage of the country. The violence stems from various sources — hopelessly indoctrinated Saddam followers; several thousand foreign fighters associated with terrorist organizations such as al-Qaida; and an assortment of disgruntled Iraqis with various ethnic, economic, religious and political agendas. The first two groups concern me the most, because they have the least to gain from Iraq’s democratic evolution. The others eventually would find a place in a stable Iraq.

An expanded, short-term crackdown by the Iraqi government and U.S.-led forces would help limit the troublemakers and encourage more people from all walks of life to join in the elections. A representative turnout would send a more powerful signal than merely a substantial number of voters.

If all goes reasonably well, Iraqis will be positioned for the next great challenge: deciding on the constitutional parameters to guide their country. Can they, without fear, intimidation and violence, promote order? Can they overcome ethnic and religious divisions, as well as the social fragmentation that Saddam deliberately caused?

Over time, yes, especially if they forge a federal system, with substantial autonomy for several provinces — one in the Kurdish-dominated north, one in the Sunni triangle, one in Shia areas to the south and one in Baghdad.

I have had detailed discussions in the last few years with Iraqis of numerous backgrounds, ethnicities and political orientations. Because they reside on the front lines of the struggle to change their nation, I find their views more helpful than many other assessments. To my mind, they have demonstrated extraordinary courage, conviction and realism. And most are ready to move on — away from terrorism, both home-grown and imported; away from unrealistic concepts, such as a strongly unified Iraq; and away from the U.S.-led occupation as soon as possible.

An outpouring of Iraqi participation at the polls in a few weeks, followed by the willingness to embrace a loose federal system, would do much to dampen fears, extremism and the prospect of civil war.

— John C. Bersia is an editorial writer for the Orlando Sentinel .