Iraqi Elections - No Change In The Major Players Or Issues

By Cernig

The NYT's Baghdad Bureau blog has a great round-up of Iraqi newspaper guesswork on who will be the big winners and losers from the Iraqi provincial elections. Essential reading for anyone gazing into their crystal ball for clues about the prospects for future political reconcilliation in Iraq. Contrary to Western media hype of the downfall of religious parties, the six leading party lists are apparently the six, mainly religiously identified, party lists that have always led in Iraq - only rebranded. The turnout was around 50%, rather lower than Maliki's predicted 70%.

Prime Minister Al Maliki, after seeing his Dawa Party schism twice in recent months, is apparently ahead of the pack with his Shiite-based "Coalition of the State of Law" list, running on Maliki's self-professed record as a strongman nationalist leader who cracked down on violence (or, at least, violence not practised by his own allies) and as deeply indebted to Iranian influence as Maliki ever was. Next comes Maliki's sometime-allies of the ISCI, another party list formed entirely from those loyal to and backed by Iran and overtly Shiite; although their almost monolithic hold on the Shiite South seems to have been eroded, in part by Maliki's list but also by the overtly-secular "Movement of the Independent Liberals" backed by the Sadrists. That rather throws a spanner in the Maliki PR machine's cogs - if he's the liberator of Basra why are Basran Shiites voting for secular independents supported by those he liberated them from at all?

In Sunni areas the two usual suspects - the Iraqi Accordance Front and the hardline Sunni list of Salih al-Mutlaq - are set to come out on top again with the help of tribal power politics, although with a position somewhat eroded by Sons of Iraq and by the new National Hadba Gathering list in Mosul. The latter has some 40% of the vote in that region and is opposed to both Kurdish influence and the American military presence, often using violent rhetoric calling for a pushback against Kurdish territorial ambitions.

Neither Kurdish areas nor the disputed area around Kirkuk voted. It's unclear when, or if, they will do so. Kurdish seperatism and recalcitrance are set to become the vinegar in the honey, bigtime. Sunnis will likewise continue to feel (mostly correctly) undervalued by their Shiite kin. Shiite political infighting between the tree biggest groups for control of the South will continue - all are beholden to Iran but at least the chances of an ISCI-led seccession are reduced.

Nothing much has changed in Iraqi politics, in my view. There are some new, divisive, players but the deep fractures and feuds that have prevented reconcilliation and held out the prospect of a return to violence will continue unresolved. Richard Dreyfuss at The Nation feels differently, seeing "a tectonic shift away from ultrareligious Shiite parties and separatist Kurds, with nationalists, secular parties, Sunnis, and Prime Minister Maliki all making huge gains...the first step toward a major recalibration of Iraqi politics -- and for the good." We'll see.

Comments

[Karl K]

Gee, weren't we supposed to lose in Iraq? At least Harry Reid said so.

[Steve Hynd]

Karl, you're verging on content-free commenting. Change that or go troll someplace else.

[Karl K]

Your blog, do what you like.

Still, if you're interested in real debate, bring it on. I'd love it.

[Steve Hynd]

OK, so how do you explian those fractures and see them playing out?