In a democracy, mandates need to be renewed - often faster than the governing elite would like. The Iraqi parliament and government are fast approaching their sell-by date. (Many believe they've passed it.)

This shouldn't be taken as a criticism of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whom history is likely to remember as a courageous leader in a difficult time. Successful or not, though, the incumbents need to be put to the test of popular will again - and soon.

There are several reasons:

* The last two elections were, in fact, census operations on a national scale. They were designed to reveal the relative strengths of the ethnic and religious communities that make up Iraq.

A system of voting for lists of candidates was inevitable in a country that had never had free elections and had lived under brutal dictatorship since 1958. People couldn't know individual candidates, for Saddam Hussein hadn't allowed anyone to acquire a political profile.

But now, political parties of all description - communist, nationalist, liberal, conservative, Islamist and socialist - have had five years in which to make themselves known and build a support base.

In Iraq today, it's possible to vote for party programs rather than bloc lists of ethnic and/or religious identity.

* The candidate lists fielded last time included a disproportionate number of returning exiles. That, too, was inevitable, for exiles had had more chances to make a name. Now a new generation of politicians - homegrown, younger and closer to the people - is available and keen to play a bigger role.

* The system of proportional representation used in the previous elections is no longer suitable. What Iraq needs is a new system under which voters can have a direct relationship with their representatives. This means a system of single- or multi-member constituencies.

Under proportional representation, party bosses decide who'll be a candidate. This encourages loyalty to the party, rather than country. The system, which excludes non-party independents, is even bad for parties because it helps promote "yes men" rather than those who favor debate and dissent.

* New elections are needed to cut out some of the deadwood in the political elite.

This elite includes some truly embarrassing figures. There are members of parliament who hardly attended a session, content to pocket the fat salary, ride in the bulletproof limo and secure lucrative posts for nephews. Some spend more time in London than Baghdad.

Since Iraq is preparing for municipal elections, it could broaden the exercise by including a general election for a new parliament. The ideal time would be at the end of this year or in the first week of January, while Bush is still in office and US commitment beyond question.

Even if John McCain succeeds Bush, Congress will likely be dominated by Democrats, a party whose current engine is the anti-war network dedicated to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq.

With a new parliament and government in place in Baghdad, backed by a new and stronger popular mandate, the US party of defeat would find it harder to impose its weird obsession on the new president in Washington.