Depending on the outcome of Iraq's first democratic election, the future of democracy in the Middle East and the lives of many Iraqis could be at stake.

"The election's success will revolve around the insurgency in the Sunni areas. Polling stations may be attacked. Some will just see the process as being illegitimate," Navin Bapat, assistant professor of political science, said.

Political science professor Scott Bennett said that Sunday's election might be problematic. "There may be a mere boycott of candidates ... Without many Sunni candidates, that group may feel more marginalized, which could lead to a civil war," Bennett said.

Political Science Association President Midori Valdivia said the legitimacy of the elections is being highly scrutinized because of the expected Sunni minority.

"I think everyone would agree that democratic elections are the first step to an increasingly stable government in Iraq," Valdivia said.

Although there will be democratic elections, the democratic stability in Iraq is not so certain, Bennett said.

"There are still real questions about whether [democracy] will happen. It was an enormous gamble, and so far it hasn't turned out the way the administration would've liked," Bennett said.

However, good democracy takes time, Young Americans for Freedom Chairman Shauna Moser said. "We can't expect them to have the world's most perfect democracy overnight because it doesn't work like that," Moser said.

There was an original hope for an Iraqi democracy to be established so it would spread, Bennett said. "The first democracy is the hardest to establish, but there may be a snowball effect, and democracy may spread in the Middle East," Bennett said.

International Student Council President Raya Guruswamy said that even after Iraq's elections are over, terrorism frequency will not be any different. "If you catch Osama Bin Laden, is terrorism going to end? No, it's not, and it's the same with the elections," he said.

The people of Iraq may not agree with the new government and will not cooperate now or in the future, Bapat said.

"Some Iraqis don't see this as the government they are interested in. They don't see it as legitimate because it was imposed by the Americans," Bapat said.

Guruswamy said Iraq is too volatile, and the elections should be delayed.

"Anyone seen as remotely supporting the government is killed. ... In Iraq, it's either vote or your life," Guruswamy said.

Americans have different views of the election because they are not actually living there, Valdivia said.

"I believe Iraqis are wearier of the situation. We have the luxury of dissecting the war from afar," Valdivia said.

Bapat added that the United States is in favor of the election, so they can establish a democracy and end occupation. However, the United States will only depart from Iraq if democracy is stabilized, Bennett said.

"Americans will be leaving more if the government manages to hold its own against the insurgency. It will most likely ask American occupation to decrease," Bennett said. "Americans won't leave if the violence escalates."

Professor of Middle Eastern history Arthur Goldschmidt said the United States' response depends greatly on the situation post-election. "It looks as if a civil war is brewing between the Shiites and Sunnis. Our actions destabilized the country, and we would be blamed if we pull out," Goldschmidt said.

But if democracy does spread through the Middle East, it may have a positive influence on surrounding countries, Goldschmidt said.

"There would be a growing demand for democracy, which would be a positive outcome," he said.