The national elections in Iraq on 7 March were hailed a success by Barack Obama in Washington, who was keen to continue with his policy of reducing American troop numbers in the country. David Miliband's comments were more circumspect, merely stating that the election campaign had been "vibrant" and praising the Iraqi people's "determination" to vote.

Those pointing to the election results as proof that Iraq has emerged from its post-invasion turmoil should take a lesson from the pages of recent history. The architects of the invasion, George Bush and Tony Blair, trumpeted the 2005 elections as a watershed moment that justified their decision to invade. Instead, those elections and the parties they empowered played a major role in driving Iraq into a destructive civil war. The ramifications of the 7 March vote are still unfolding and are starting to look much less positive than Obama had hoped.

Those who run for elections commit themselves to upholding and abiding by a common set of rules. Democracy, if it is to mean anything, is anchored into the rule of law, transparently applied to all, without fear or favour. The Iraqi election campaign and its aftermath both point to profound shortcomings in Iraq's rule of law and the reluctance of key politicians to abide by the democratic rules of the game.

The first indication of problems arose in January, when the justice and accountability commission – the organisation charged with pursuing the de-Ba'athification process set in train by the Americans in 2003 – issued edicts seeking to ban 511 individual candidates and 14 party lists from the elections. On the eve of the vote the commission banned a further 50 candidates. Meanwhile, Ali Faisal al-Lami, the head of the justice and accountability commission, also ran as a parliamentary candidate, in a blatant conflict of interest indicative of a system where governmental institutions have been colonised by political parties and run as private fiefdoms.

The only piece of legislation passed by the Iraqi parliament to justify these expulsions was the justice and accountability law of January 2008. However, Lami made it clear in a public statement that the most influential politician to be banned from the elections, Saleh al-Mutlaq, was not excluded under this legislation. Given that Mutlaq was expelled from the Ba'ath party in 1977, helped draft the new Iraqi constitution and led a party that won 11 seats in the 2005 elections, it was difficult to see any legal logic to exclude him from the March elections. Mutlaq was a member of the coalition led by former prime minister, Iyad Allawi, that sought to build cross-sectarian support. This coalition had the largest number of candidates excluded by the justice and accountability commission. Clearly, state institutions have been blatantly manipulated to favour one side in the election campaign while increasing sectarian tensions.

It has taken 20 days since the elections for the votes to be counted. Allawi's coalition ended up as the victor, but with a lead of only two seats over the incumbent prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki. However, the behaviour of both Allawi and Maliki during the count indicates their refusal to be bound rules that do not benefit them. When the count looked like it was going to favour Maliki, Allawi's organisation lodged a number of complaints alleging widespread fraud. Maliki rigorously rebutted these allegations, stating that although no electoral process had "zero violations" and in this case they did "not change the results". But as the number of votes counted swung against Maliki, Allawi quickly changed his stance, saying: "The Iraqi people have honoured the Iraqiya list and chosen it to be the basis of forming the new government." Maliki also dramatically changed his opinion. "No way we will accept the results," he bluntly stated. Instead he called for a recount in order to prevent a "return to violence". If anyone failed to detect the sinister threat at the heart of his statement, he issued it in his role as head of the country's armed forces.

In 2005 and again in 2010, Iraqis have risked their lives to vote and placed their faith in the country's fledgling democratic system. In 2005 and again in the last fortnight, they have been let down by their politicians. Both Allawi and Maliki, when faced with defeat, have sought to discredit the system by alleging widespread fraud. The UN in Iraq has repeatedly stated it cannot find evidence of systematic cheating. Instead, it is clear that Iraq's new ruling elite are perfectly happy to ignore their electorate's wishes and undermine the democratic system in an attempt to maximise their chances of holding on to power.

The idea that elections are the be-all and end-all of democracy is naive at best. At worst they are a shallow and unsustainable justification for the carnage that followed invasion and regime change. Iraq's new ruling elite was brought back to the country by US and British troops; they are now presiding over a country that has repeatedly gone to the polls but received precious little beyond politically motivated violence, widespread corruption and now a flagrant disregard for the rule of law by their elected politicians.