Saturday 1 May 2010
Iraq continues to be embroiled in its messy post-election coalition-building process. It has become so messy that the US may well be rethinking its withdrawal plans, and particularly its withdrawal of all combat troops at the end of August.
In the past few weeks, amid a number of terror attacks, two key developments have taken place: an order by an electoral panel to have all the votes cast in Baghdad manually recounted; and a ruling that paves the way for banning some elected candidates because of their sympathies for the outlawed Ba’ath party.
Reports suggest at least two of these candidates won seats in the 325-member Iraqi parliament; both belong to the winning bloc of the Iraqi National Movement (INM), led by Ayad Allawi who won 91 seats, ahead of Nouri al-Maliki and his State of Law coalition’s 89 seats. The banning of other INM elected members is also possible within the next couple of weeks.
Together, the recount and the ban, may give Maliki little more than three or four additional seats, making him the overall electoral winner. But many will question what difference it will make, since Iraq’s supreme court has already ruled that it is the largest post-election parliamentary alliance, rather than the largest vote winner, that can form the next government.
Any changes in Maliki’s favour strengthen his hand in his push to retain the premiership and have his State of Law coalition lead the next government. State of Law (and indeed, Maliki) will redeem the prestige lost when INM was declared the largest single bloc after the elections. In such a position, Maliki could also be more willing to negotiate with INM since he would rather Allawi and INM played second-fiddle to him (as runners-up) than the other way around.
Maliki has also reportedly encountered internal problems within his Islamic Dawa party, with some factions in the group opposing another tenure for him. Any changes in his favour would constitute a political boost and help to silence his critics.
The decisions on the recount and the bans may be perceived on the Iraqi street as yet another set of attempts to sideline the Sunni voice in post-2003 Iraqi politics. But it is too easy to assume that they mark the beginning of the return to Iraq’s violent past.
Although there is cause for concern, as argued this week by Simon Tisdall, the recount itself was expected since both Allawi and Maliki complained of irregularities in the voting process and count. Also, he decision to ban the candidates was made on election day itself, meaning all the political entities had ample warning of what was to come; significant in this context is that the ban will not dramatically alter the allocation of seats.
The extent to which both rulings will adversely impact on Iraq’s political process and, indeed, US withdrawal plans will, of course, depend on Allawi and the INM’s own reactions to them – whether, that is, their reactions will go beyond rhetoric.
Allawi’s coalition, it should be noted, contains fierce ultra-nationalists all too capable of igniting damaging and destructive violence, but there is a feeling that Iraq’s political actors, some of them former insurgency members, have matured and given up their futile and costly ways of violence. INM would certainly be concerned about the possibility of the recount justifying State of Law’s calls for a manual recount in other provinces, particularly if it provides for any significant changes.
As a result of all this, a government is unlikely to be formed until August or perhaps even September, creating a vacuum that terrorists are all too happy to try to fill, and leaving the US with sufficient justification to alter its withdrawal plans.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf…-allawi-maliki
View full post on Dinar Daddy’s Tidbits
Recent Comments