Can the Dec. 15 election in Iraq help lead to some form of intra-Iraqi accommodation, and thus to significant progress toward US troop withdrawal and national independence?
Most (but not all) indications so far seem discouraging on this score. The conduct of the election has been hotly contested by, among others, the mainly-Sunni “Iraqi Accordance Front” (IAF) and also the more secular list headed by longtime US ally Iyad Allawi. Of these two contestations, that from the IAF is the one with the greatest potential to prevent the reaching of a national accommodation.
We probably don’t know the true dimensions of the complaint from the IAF yet. AP’s Jason Straziuso reports from Baghdad that the IAF officials have so far “concentrated their protests on results from Baghdad province, the biggest electoral district.” Early returns indicated that the “result” in Baghdad province was that the big Shiite list, the UIA, had won about 59% of the vote, the IAF around 19%, and Allawi’s list around 14%.
But we haven’t even heard any estimates yet of the “result” in the other provinces where Sunnis are present in large numbers and where the IAF might also rightly expect to win a lot of votes. And so far, as Straziuso reports, the IAF hasn’t started to focus on their complaints from those provinces.
Given the total lockdown the country experienced for the days around the election itself, and the very substantial lockdown that the US and their allied forces maintain, in general, in and around most of the country’s heavily Sunni cities, it must be extremely difficult for the IAF’s national leadership even to communicate with its representatives in those areas, let alone to gather any systematic details about the nature of complaints from the many voting precincts in those cities.
According to Straziuso, the IAF warned of, “grave repercussions on security and political stability” if the mistakes claimed (in Baghdad) so far were not corrected. He quoted Adnan al-Dulaimi, head of the front, as saying, “we will demand that the elections be held again in Baghdad. … If this demand is not met, then we will resort to other measures.”
However, Moqtada Sadr, the activist, generally anti-US Shiite cleric who is both on the UIA list and an advocate of strong links with the Sunnis, has reportedly lauded the results of the elections as released so far. This Dec. 19 edition of IWPR’s “Iraqi Press Monitor” summarizes a report from Al-Sabah that said this:
- The young Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr said the participation of Sunni Arabs in the elections enhanced the political process. He added that the wide participation of Iraqis in the recent election reflected the vitality of the Iraqi people. Sadr said the people will decide the government’s future. He emphasized that he supports any list that will better serve the people and any government that works for Iraq’s independence. The electoral victory is a victory for Iraq, Sadr added.
The way I read this, it seems likely that Sadr feels that his people did well in the elections– perhaps especially in and around Baghdad, where he has a strong base of support. A particularly strong result for the UIA list in Baghdad would presumably give Sadr a lot more bargaining power in the crucial post-election bargaining for power that is going on right now inside the UIA coalition. (It’s a strange feature of the electoral system that has been cobbled together in Iraq over the past 18 months that people vote for a list without the order of the actual candidates who are part of that list having been agreed and advertised in advance.)
I’ve been trying to read today’s Al-Hayat in Arabic to figure out what might be happening inside the UIA right now. But I don’t really have time to do a good job… (Help, Salah, Shirin, anyone?) Anyway, toward the end of this article there , it says,
- … sources close to the UIA confirmed that disagreements had broken out between its principal parties over the position of prime minister. And the sources, which preferred not to be named, told al-Hayat that, “The sharp disagreements over the premiership between the Daawa Party led by Ibrahim Jaafari and SCIRI, led by Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, have not yet been resolved.”
And they added that SCIRI rejected this [unclear what], referring to “its bigger mass following and its larger number of seats and that if it hadn’t been for SCIRI the UIA would only gotten half as many votes”. And they noted that, “the other disagreements center on the terms offered by the representatives of Moqtada al-Sadr in the list and which are represented by the need not to deny positions [i.e. jobs] of soveriegnty and ministerial [responsibility] and the participation of all the winning lists regardless of their ministerial weight, in the formation of a government of national salvation.”
And the sources confirmed that, according to the contacts that the American administration in Iraq, as represented by its ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, the [contest over the] premiership is reserved between Adel Abdul-Mahdi [of SCIRI] and Iyad Allawi and that Zad [i.e. Khalilzad] doesn’t support the candidacy of Ibrahim Jaafari, and he prefers to save the security-related ministries for parties that don’t have militias…
We could also note that Jaafari’s (out-going) administration has really been hobbled in recent days by the (US-imposed) decision it took the day after lat week’s election, to increase fuel prices by around 2,000%…
Anyway, there is clearly a lot of politics going on inside the UIA there… SCIRI head Hakim has been quoted in Hayat and elsewhere as saying some pretty triumphalist things about how the UIA has now definitievly won the election so they can go ahead and intensify their “de-Baathification” campaign. That would seem to be a big obstacle to Moqtada Sadr’s aim of finding a good entente with the Sunnis…
Any further contributions that commenters can make to providing good sources, links, and translations about the current politics inside the UIA (or even just improving my rapid little piece of translation there) would be really great. Thanks, friends!
Basically, Shiite fundamentalist UIA wins big, secularists lose miserably. BTW, somewhere I read that in addition to Sadrists, UIA happens to include Hizballah!
As for Arato’s idea of Allawi-Sunni coalition, IMO, it is completely hopeless.
Also, I love this piece: The system is not turnout dependent in homogeneous provinces, but only in ethnically mixed ones in the sense that if one group turns out more heavily than an other, it will get a larger proportion of that provincial list than its demographic weight would indicate.
Well, of course, Iraqi voting is driven by ethnicity / religion. Also, turnout is not critical when the winner is clear. So what?
1. Juan Cole. Fundamentalist Shiites Will Dominate New Parliament: http://www.juancole.com/2005/12/fundamentalist-shiites-will-dominate.html
2. Arato Guest Editorial on the Election: http://www.juancole.com/2005/12/arato-guest-editorial-on-election.html
That would be Iraqi Hizbullah, not the Lebanese one. Different fish.
Also I agree that an Allawi-Sunni coalition is v. unlikely. Sadr’s continued attempts to build an alliance with the Sunnis– in the formation of a government of national salvation— are potentially much more important, and much more politically positive. Of course, he and they probably do need to reach agreement on whether the election was legitimate or not…
Just uploaded recent news to: http://inplainview.us.tt/newsWorldMEIraq90.htm
One guess is, Khalilzad may try to turn UIA factions against each other to help Allawi.
Aso, an idea of Shiite-Sunni Islamist alliance looks strange indeed, they hardly can cooperate. This explains why Sunnis cry foul on election fraud.
From the other side, IMHO, strengthening of clerics increases risk of large scale guerilla civil war. Sadr looks optimistic on inter-faith alliance, but it can be just his age 😉
That would be Iraqi Hizbullah, not the Lebanese one. Different fish.
Helena, You talking as the Iraqis created and designed their politics as you stated here in your blog.
The reality US/Americas they designed this shape of politics from day one when Sheikh Bremer III selected and appointed three or more major politic groups to plays in Iraq, what happened on the ground all of it is just a miss either Iraqi don’t not know what they can do to get rid of this ugly occupation or fighting those thugs who came under US protection.
For them its wining situation any way as soon as US inside Iraq.
What we got as you stated “Iraqi Hizbullah” of cores its their playing there don’t forgot your advice long time in your post that you promote Lebanon Hizbullah as example of after the civil war there to be used to rebuilding Iraq.
For Iraqi it’s clear that without US protection this Rubbish will be cleaned very fast just go away from their country and leave them they are better than you Helena. The time will prove my words…
Helena, there is some information, possibly of interest to you, about internal rifts within the United Iraqi Alliance at this link: http://historiae.org/555.asp
The article also includes some information on how the representatives of the various parties rank on the lists.
hello.
at my blog, http://pray4iraq.blogspot.com i have done an analysis on how i personally think the race for PM will go down. i also have reliable information about an imminent US troop reduction. this is a world exclusive and that is not hyperbole. The world finds out about this tommorow so i hope you guys can make use of it in advance.
Regards
Eisa Ali
Hi, all. Thanks especially for those last two links, Reidar and Eisa. Eisa, your blog looks new and interesting: good luck with it (It takes more work than you think…. ) But Pray4iraq is a great name.
at my blog, http://pray4iraq.blogspot.com i have done an analysis on how i personally think the race for PM will go down. i also have reliable information about an imminent US troop reduction. this is a world exclusive and that is not hyperbole. The world finds out about this tommorow so i hope you guys can make use of it in advance. Regards Eisa Ali Posted by Eisa Ali at December 22, 2005 08:45 PM
I checked your blog, thanks a lot 🙂 A few remarks.
— I agree that situation in Iraq looks gloomy, full scale guerilla civil war looks close, brrrrr 🙁
— Media monitoring confirms that neocons are completely confused, they must have different factions which suppor different local forces.
— Historically, confusion is even worse than in Spain in the 1930-ies, in Vietnam in the 1960-70-ies, and in Afganistan in the 1980-ies. Back then, different sides of the civil conflict were supported by different superpowers. But now it is all between US/UK/Israel – and Iran which is not a global superpower. So, in the end, we are facing long, chaotic and bloody conflict.
— Symbolic US troop reduction is well known, but it won’t change much.
— I know that it may sound amazing, but from any reasonable Western prospective, Shiites, Sunnnis, and Kurds are just sides of the conflict, nobody of them is “better” than others.
— IMO, now it is all up the locals to sort the things out, outsiders don’t have anything to contribute – except for even more death and destruction. So, it is more like Afganistan or Lebanon than Spain or Vietnam.
grrrrr… typo: Afghanistan…
Thanks guys, im a novice at the ol’ bloggin’ hustle so im taking all your comments as valuable advice!
but im pretty determined to make this blog a success and i have got a piece coming up soon about the latest developments in Iraq, based on an interview with a well-placed Baghdad source.
^^ And Henry i think it is the confusion within the US administration which could be the most dangerous factor of all in Iraq. If they keep switching sides this conflict will be prolonged as you say, for years to come.
http://pray4iraq.blogspot.com
regards
Eisa Ali