Shiite Religious Parties dominate 10 of 18 Provinces
Talabani calls for Government of National Unity
The Los Angeles Times reports that the secular Iraqiya list of Iyad Allawi so far seems only to have 8% of the seats in the new parliament, though that tally may increase slightly when the 230,000 or so votes of expatriates are counted. (I doubt it will increase much). Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress did not get enough votes even to win a single seat, so far.
The Kurds so far have about 45 seats of the 230 being voted for, and the Sunnis have 35. The latter are split between the neo-Baathist National Dialogue Council of Salih Mutlak and the fundamentalist Sunni National Accord Front of Adnan Dulaimi. These totals will probably increase when the unallocated seats are reapportioned. The Sunni Arabs are upset that they are trailing the Kurds, being convinced that they are a much larger group. But since the seats have been allocated to provinces on the basis of voting registration in Jan. 2005, that consideration is irrelevant. Besides, the Sunni Arabs vastly overestimate their own proportion of the Iraqi population; a lot of them really think they are a majority!
Al-Hayat [Ar.] reports that the National Accord Front is leading in 4 provinces (presumably Anbar, Salahuddin, and Ninevah, but what is the fourth? Diyala?). The United Iraqi Alliance (Shiite) is leading in 9 southern provinces and in Baghdad. And the Kurdistan Alliance is leading in four provinces (Dohuk, Sulaimaniyah, Irbil and Kirkuk).
Al-Hayat says that Jalal Talabani, the Kurdish leader and current president, is calling for a government of national unity that will include Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis. Al-Sharq al-Awsat is franker about Talabani's rationale here, since he said that the Shiite-Kurdish alliance between him and prime minister Ibrahim Jaafari had not been successful. Talabani never got along with Jaafari, and was uncomfortable with being merely a ceremonial president, as is called for in the Iraqi constitution. Whatever its rationale, the national unity government is a very good idea. It does have the drawback that such a government would seldom be able actually to take a decision, since the three groups disagree with one another vehemently on most issues. On the other hand, since the government has almost no power or authority, and is mainly symbolic, it probably doesn't matter if it can't take many decisions. On the other hand, it is hard to see why the Shiite majority should give away all the advantages of its majority.
The LA Times estimates that the United Iraqi Alliance, the Shiite fundamentalist party, has 110 seats so far. To form a government, it will need 138. But its totals may increase. AP says that Husain Shahristani of the UIA (someone very close to Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani) is predicting that the Shiite religious coalition will end up with 130 seats, ten less than its current total. Moreover, a group of Sadrists, the Messengers, ran separately from the UIA in the south and are getting 3% of the seats. If that holds, they will have about 7 or 8 seats, and they will certainly ally with the United Iraqi Alliance, which is therefore in striking distance of forming a government. The Guardian explains the reapportionment formula for the 45 seats that were not initially in play:
' The other 45 are split, partly on the "best loser" principle, whereby small parties that did not win enough votes for a seat in any province have their votes totalled nationally. If this figure surpasses a certain threshold, they get a seat. After this is done, the remaining seats are split among the big winners in proportion to their national tallies. This will give the Shi'ite alliance even more. '
Adnan Dulaimi of the National Accord Front, a Sunni group, angrily charged extensive voting fraud in Baghdad, where Sunnis got only about 20 percent of the vote, and demanded a re-vote. Not likely. Actually, this result is plausible. Dulaimi's list is Islamist, and the Sunni Baghadis are not mostly Islamists. A lot of secular middle class Sunnis probably voted for Allawi's secular list, which got 14% in early returns in Baghdad. Allawi's list would have appealed to secular ex-Baathists. Moreover, Sunni Arabs were not completely free to vote. Security is very bad in Amiriyah, Ghazaliyah, Adhamiyah and other districts of the capital, and a lot of people would have been afraid to come out. In contrast, the Shiites of East Baghdad, who are probably at least half the population, have fair security, and since the United Iraqi Alliance includes Muqtada al-Sadr's bloc as well as Dawa and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, there was something for everyone there; the vote turnout would have been high. [By the way, could journalists please stop calling it the National Accordance Front? That is not English, no matter what Dulaimi thinks.]
Allawi is the skunk at the party from the point of view of most of the other parties. The Guardian reports, ' "We've started talks with the Sunnis and Kurds. Not many of us are eager to take Allawi on board. I don't think he stands a chance," said Haider Abadi, spokesperson for the [Shiite fundamentalist] Dawa party of the Prime Minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari. '
Cole: I think I pretty much nailed this election last October in this post (scroll down a bit). Note that I was often contradicted by observers on the ground in Iraq, who kept saying they perceived a groundswell for the secular party of Allawi, even in the Shiite-dominated provinces. This allegation never made any sense to me. Michael Rubin of the AEI was predicting 5 percent for Chalabi (the neocon favorite) and 20 percent for Allawi, a prediction that demonstrates that after 2 1/2 years the neocons still just can't understand anything about contemporary Iraq.
R.J. Eskow shreds the Neocon vision of what Iraq would become to pieces. Iraq is going to be pro-Iran, and will not recognize Israel (Muqtada al-Sadr will be part of the ruling coalition!) The 38 Sadrist parliamentarians and the 50 or so Sunni ones will form a powerful bloc calling for immediate US withdrawal from Iraq.
Iranian pilgrims to the Shiite shrine cities in Iraq began coming to Iraq again on Tuesday, as the border crossings opened.
The US military is using more air power to fight Sunni Arab guerrillas in Western Iraq.


14 Comments:
The fourth must be Ta'mim. It would be very interesting if Tawafuq beat the Kurds there given the possible referendum. Should be a pretty mixed bag there at any rate.
Juan...
You try so hard, but the message still is not getting through - as the Sydney Morning Herald Proclaims US Hope of a Secular Iraq Fade Away
Of course, those hopes faded long ago ( if they were ever plausible in the first instance), yet I have not heard a word to this effect on MSNBC and barely that on NewsHour. The news networks still play the "great success". In fact, I follow this fairly closely, yet I didn't even know that the insurgents had called a truce until after they resumed fighting.
To be fair, though some print media seem to be catching on, this will not do.
Could you try harder?
(facetious)
Correction: Shahristani was predicting UIA gets 130 seats not 230. 230 out of 275 total would be massive!
Also, check out this post I put up on Just World News yesterday about some of the politics going on inside tthe UIA.
L'Orient Le Jour (Beirut):
"La liste sunnite arrive en tęte dans quatre provinces de l’ouest et du nord, al-Anbar, Ninive, Diyala et Salaheddine, "
Yes, the fourth province won by the Sunnis is Diyala.
Here is a map of Iraqi provinces. BTW, with MS-Office, there is no need to learn things like this by heart ;-)
I think you meant to write that the LA Times expected the UIA to get 130 votes, not 230.
Bill Quandt
Ignore my previous post -- it wasn't the LA Times, rther AP
"AP says that Husain Shahristani of the UIA (someone very close to Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani) is predicting that the Shiite religious coalition will end up with 230 seats, ten less than its current total." The number should be 130, I think.
Was Hussein tortured?
Independent experts can easily verify the fact of torture. So, if Hussein lies that he has been tortured then US officials can easily prove that everything is OK. This would be a terrible humiliation for him!
But Hussein does not need to read Malleus Maleficarum to learn the logic of torture, he is a world class expert in this area. So, it is very likely that he tells the truth.
The problem is, it means that Hussein's trial has nothing to do with Western justice, it cannot achieve anything except for discreditation of the occupation.
In fact, organizers of this nauseating show have nobody but themselves to blame for their historic blunder.
If there is any difference between Hussein's trial and Stalinist trials of the 1930-ies, it is abysmal organization. At least, Vyshinsky had a theory for this kind of "justice" and he knew how to make it work for Stalin's benefit.
1. BBC. Americans tortured me - Saddam
2. Wiki on Malleus Maleficarum
3. Wiki on Vyshinskly
4. Vyshinsky speech at the 1936 trial of Zinoviev and Kamenev
I posted Patrick Cockburn's views on the election the Today in Iraq blog here:
Iraq is disintegrating. The first results from the parliamentary election last week show the country is dividing between Shia, Sunni and Kurdish regions.
John Simpson of the BBC was also quoted.
But why did so many insurgent leaders (with the exception of the religious extremists, who are in a definite minority) encourage the Sunni population to come out and vote?
The American academic Dr Juan Cole draws a comparison with the IRA and Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland: they used both the Armalite rifle and the ballot-box in their campaign.
The idea that voting necessarily drives out the men of violence is deeply questionable.
From ABC News:
Dec. 20, 2005 — - President Bush's National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley today labeled Iran "probably the No. 1 supporter of terror in the world today" and claimed a growing consensus between the Bush administration and its critics on the way forward in Iraq.
Speaking at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, Hadley said Iraq's recent parliamentary election is one way to offset Iran's influence in the region, claiming the high turnout on Sunday could help trigger democracy throughout the region.
"That is why it is so important that the terrorists be defeated in Iraq, and that Iraq be a showcase, in some sense, of a competition between the ideology of the terrorists and the ideology of freedom and democracy," Hadley said.
Hadley said he hopes that ideological struggle will spread to Iran. "One of the questions we keep asking is, when are the Iranian people going to begin to ask themselves, 'If Iraqis in Iran can participate in a free election in Iraq, why not us?'"
Hadley apparently doesn't know who won the election in Iraq -- Shiite religious parties, closely allied with Iran's ruling clerics. Many of their leaders, in fact, were living in Iran until the U.S. brought about regime change. The Iranian government praised the elections in Iraq and welcomed the results. Iraq's central government will be very weak, barely more than symbolic, but the majority of the country's population, oil resources, and military, will end up under the control of the Ayatollahs.
Democracy depends on a democratic political culture, not the ritual of voting. Iraqis have elected a fundamentalist, clergy-dominated government hostile to Israel, hostile to the United States, and closely tied to Iran. Now the plan is to keep U.S. troops in Iraq in order to protect and defend this government, build up its armed forces, and help it defeat the Sunni Arabs and secularists who do not wish to live in a Shiite theocracy. Mr. Hadley, and the Resident, define that proposed outcome as "victory."
Are they nuts?
What I find highly significant is the fact that Washington's puppets - Alawi and Chalabi - who were the recipient of highly generous US aid in both dollars and consultants if my memory serves me right (well, maybe not Chalabi, not as directly as Alawi) scored so dismally low. This demonstrates that the Iraqi people aren't easily fooled by Western shenanigans.
Using the data and guidelines for seat allocation posted on the Independent Iraq Electoral Comission website (which apparently is not the final data), I came up with the following seat totals out of the initial 230:
UIC: 110 or .478
Iraq List: 21 or .09
Sunni:
Iraq Front-Tawafoq: 35 or .152
Iraq Front-Hewar: 9 or .039
Total Sunni: 44 or .19
Kurds:
Kurdistani Gathering: 43 or .187
Islamic Union of Kurdistan: 4 or .017
Total Kurd: 47 or .204
Turkmen: 1
Assyrian (al Rafadeen): 1
Progressives: 2
Liberty & Reconciliation 3
Mithal al Aloosi List for Iraqi Nation: 1
--
The Tawafoq Iraq Front (sunni) was first in Anbar, Ninevah, Salahadin, and Diyala; also, they were second in Baghdad.
My calculations do not indicate that the Sadr-affiliated party received any support in the South (unless they are the poorly-named progressive party)... Perhaps the guardian was referring to the raw support for the party, but that doesn't even seem consistent with the results...
-seank
Every move the Bush/PNAC war mongers have made, - every decision and every projection they have made about their horrific war has been a disaster.
The media will never acknowledge the total failure of the 'election.' They will continue to promote the purple finger theory of nation building.
We've all been had, big time.
Good read: Identity Theft of America:
CLICK
Maidan on Euphrates
For those who track the developments in the post-Soviet space, Sunni argumentation looks strikingly familiar.
Exactly 1 year ago, in the late 2004, pro-Western Ukrainian orangists used accusations of vote-rigging against Kuchma and Yanukovich.
So, ironically, now neocons can get their colored revolution in the ME! Also, Sunni complains are directed against their arch-enemy Iran. The problem is, this time, it all leads to large scale guerilla civil war in Iraq:-(
1. AJ. Iraqi parties threaten boycott
2. Post-Soviet news blog - 2004
Post a Comment
<< Home