Iraqi Election Results: Shiites Near Majority in Parliament
Shiite clerical leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim narrowly avoided being assassinated as the election results were announced in Iraq on Friday.
The Shiite fundamentalist coalition, the United Iraqi Alliance, won 128 of 275 seats in parliament. It needs 138 for a simple majority. The Risaliyun or Message Party won 2 seats; it represents the Sadr movement of young Shiite clerical nationalist Muqtada al-Sadr, and has announced that it will vote with the UIA. So for all practical purposes, the UIA has 130 seats, 8 short of a simple majority.
[Revised]: The Kurdistan Alliance has 53 seats. I am informed by Peter Galbraith that the Kurdish Islamists, who gained 5 seats, will vote with the Kurdistan Alliance. Together the religious Shiites and the Kurds therefore have 188. A 2/3s majority of 275 would be 184. By that calculation, the two have the votes to choose a president, who will certainly ask the UIA to form a government and provide the prime minister.
I'm not sure that the UIA can pick up the 8 from the small parties that would give it a semi-permanent majority across issues. The Yazidis, a heterodox religious group, have one seat, and they are afraid of Muslim fundamentalism. The Christians have a seat and they deeply dislike the Shiite religious parties, as well as the Kurds. The Turkmen have one seat. These are presumably Sunni Turkmen and if so they deeply dislike the Kurds and Shiites. Mithal al-Alusi, a Western-style liberal has a seat, and he will avoid the UIA. A small liberal Sunni party of ex-Baathist Mishaan Juburi has three seats and will not ally with the Shiites. The Kurdish Islamists have 5 seats and, being Sunnis, may or may not vote with the Shiite fundamentalists, depending on the specific issue. These 12 seats are the only "independents" in parliament and would only vote with the UIA if they were heavily bribed with enormous perquisites. The only argument for 8 of these to join the Shiites would be that by doing so they would gain some enormous influence far beyond their small numbers in society.
Still, as the largest cohesive bloc, the Shiite religious coalition will certainly form the government for the next 4 years and will provide the prime minister. Their victory is a major setback for the Bush administration, which had backed the secular list of Iyad Allawi, al-Iraqiyah. The Iraqiyah's representation was substantially cut back, to only 25 seats. The Shiite religious parties have warm relations with Tehran and form a new arena for Iranian influence in the Middle East. The Bush administration hope that Allawi or his list members can be shoe-horned into important posts in the new government strikes me as forlorn unless there is American coercion of some sort. They lost, and the spoils go to winners.
The UIA can govern, as Ariel Sharon used to in Israel, however, by putting together an ad hoc parliamentary coalition on each individual issue. Where implementation of Islamic law is the issue, probably the Sunni fundamentalists of the Iraqi Accord Front (44 seats) will vote with the UIA. Where SCIRI supports loose federalism, it can depend on the Kurds' 58 seats to offset possible defections from the Sadr faction, which favors strong central government.
Al-Hayat [Ar.] argues that this result leads not so much to a national unity government as to a hung parliament or an extremely weak and fragile ruling coalition where the prime minister is always in danger of losing a vote of no confidence.
The same source reports that Ammar al-Hakim, son of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, objected strongly to the formula used by the electoral commission in the distribution of seats. He said that some small parties which had not actually reached the cut-off for a seat (some 40,000 votes) had been awarded a seat nevertheless, contrary to the practice of the previous election. The UIA clearly feels that its actual majority was stolen from it by the new procedure.
Likewise, the Turkmen argued that they are 11 percent of Kirkuk and have substantial populations in Ninevah province, and it is not possible that they should only have received one seat. (Note that the major Turkmen city of Tal Afar was emptied in the run-up to the elections by an American assault, deeply disadvantaging the Turkmen in this election vis a vis the Kurds). Likewise, the (Sunni) National Accord Front insisted that it had half the votes in Baghdad but that there was election fraud. - al-Zaman.
One question is whether the 58 Sunni Arabs, the 5 Kurdish Islamists and the Sadr faction will combine to pass an early resolution by simple majority demanding an immediate US withdrawal of troops.
Significant Sunni participation in the parliament, with 58 seats altogether, will not affect the guerrilla movement, which rejects the new style of politics. Guerrillas have unleashed grisly bombing campaigns that show no sign of letting up.
(Still traveling. Will try to comment on al-Qaeda developments soon.)


10 Comments:
Is the SCIRI the dominant UIA player anymore?
How durable is a Shia/Kurd alliance likely to be?
These questions and others from election results that show Sadr parties with about 36% (*before national seats alloted); SCIRI 19% and Dawaa Parties 23%.
If I were the Kurds or Hakim, I'd worry about Sadrists cutting deals with Sunni religious parties on federalism, islamic law, and on US troop presence. The other factor to consider - 3/5 veto override which cuts the other way I would guess, ie militates against Kutting off the Kurds
Let the Bribing Begin
Now that the election results are out (is there a full, offical list somewhere, with vote totals, etc?),
the real fun can start.
Presumably every international agency of any pretension will be out there with bribes and other inducements. Watch the fancy cars pull up to Parliament.
Then we'll see how cohesive the "parties" are. Do any of the lists have any mechanism for enforcing party discipline? (OK, so that's probably a blow-coffee-out-your-nose level of naivete question, but wanted to pose it anyway.)
Since the whole "government" is going to be a somewhat surreal abstraction anyway, this may not all matter that much. Somebody is going to have to deal with the international oil market, the US, and the rest of the world.
If the US isn't going to give any "more" assistance, that kind of leaves the field open for Good Neighbor Iran, unless Kuwait and Saudi Arabia or others of the Oil Patch Crowd feel motivated to give...not likely, eh?
So how long is our Military going to be welcome, if all it has to contribute is guns and bombs? If all our influence comes in one flavor, will Mao be proved right, that power flows from the barrel of a gun? Not a barrel of oil, or dollars?
Will the military-occupation door start closing, beginning with the hired-gun "security" contractors?
From today's Los Angeles Times:
Juan Cole, a Middle East specialist at the University of Michigan, said it was "pie in the sky" for the U.S. to expect that it could sell a secular candidate when Iraq's religious parties are strengthening their grip.
"It may be possible for the Americans to leverage their influence to try to get the least objectionable person in the ministry, but when they say they want somebody with zero ties, what world are they living in?" he said.
He said it would be very difficult for Washington to persuade Iraqi officials to accept a minister tied to Allawi's coalition.
Cole thinks the Americans might have more luck promoting another candidate who has surfaced, Jawad Maliki, a member of the Islamic Dawa Party and an advisor to transitional Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari. Although Dawa has ties to the Iranians, its militia is relatively small and may not concern Washington, Cole said.
Behind the Iraqi election numbers
1 Five of Iraq president's staff wounded by bomb
2. Hazards of smoking in the ME
I am still confused by the logic of hitting Turkmen targets. I thought the Turkmen had Turkey as an advocate and that Turkey, our ally, is very concerned about the Kurds triggering a Turkmen diaspora in order to claim majorities in some disputed areas.
Why are we attacking the Turkmen since that action seems to have cost them seats in the new government? Or is this some sort of payback to Turkey for not allowing us to use their territory for a base for our invasion of Iraq?
Orignally posted to the wrong blog post...
What strikes me about this election is still the electoral system itself. Why did the framers feel the need to compound the greatest flaw of proportional representation-- hanging seats-- by recreating it in each province? Given how nascent these parties are, wouldn't it have been better to have direct elections of representatives, which would give assemblymembers a little more electoral credibility? Was the security situation to dire for personal campaigning? Are the provinces themselves useful to the democratic system, or would new (far smaller and more population uniform) assembly districts have been better? Do these provinces have a powerful historical legacy that I'm not aware of?
If democratic accountability relies to an extent on the transparency of the electoral system, it seems like this electoral regime fails on this account. Or was that the plan: temper democracy until the country is more stable?
Al Hakim has just taken his latest move directly from the Israeli playbook. He says that Sunni parties must " fight terror " or forget about being part of the government. We all know how that one will work. The LA Times says the US will push for the Interior Ministry amonst others to go to people they trust - Allawi group members etc. That's not going to work either. Although the Shia have apparently said they'll review the constitution.
Thing is, there's months of horse trading left to go so we don't really know the real positions of anybody yet. The first big clue we'll get is the Shia reaction to the next big mass bombings.
BTW Juan, this is worth reading :
http://robertdreyfuss.com/blog/2005/12/interview_baath_leader_calls_f.html
Have read your blog for years now, emailed you with some information on British parliamentary stuff over a year ago. I think they'll form a government, but not a very useful one, and the insurgency will continue. Question is, what then ?
Iraq war will cost between 1 to 2 Trillion Dollars.
We could have gone to mars, inspired and challenged the world and reaped a century of technological benefits.
We could have fed all the starving people of the world.
We could have defeated AIDs removing immense suffering from the human race.
We could have given the best educations and maybe even a college education to all of our children.
Instead we will have another legacy of violence and probably defeat, with mistrust among our allies and hatred from our enemies.
Another generation of our brave young men (and now women) returning to try and live a "normal" life with the scars of war
lingering in their souls - with little real help or honor provided to them from the politicians that sent them into that hell.
Is going to war the answer to this worlds problems? Examine the real costs versus the real benefits .
Could we have done better than this? Are we playing right into the game plan of the terrorists?
Compare real life to sports. Who wins the ball game?
Isn't it the team that doesn't get "shook up" and distracted but goes in and plays "their game - their way" and wins?
What do we do best in America?
What are our real assets in the war on terrorism?
Is it our brute military and CIA force or our Christian Heritage, our freedoms and our economic and technological resources?
Here is just one example of thinking out of the "war box". Convert all our gas powered devices over to alternative fuels and resources within 5 years or less. Help our allies and all others interested to do the same. We gain vast new revenues, job opportunitys and investment capital while ultimately reducing the middle east conflicts and leftist oil rich countrys agendas into becoming "irrelevant to us" - possibly forcing them to deal with their own cultural inequities, lack of industrialization and education, their political and religious extremism, and ultimately to begin to act like real citizen nations of the world - if they don't have the oil money they dont have the means to fund and promote their radical agendas.
Just an idea . . .
Think about it.
Got any better ideas?
We need a "great" vision for the 21st Century. Something to really inspire us, our children and our future grandchildren.
well proportional representation eliminates the possiblity of gerrymandering and ensures that everyone gets their fair share of seats in proportion to thie votes.
Also without an accurate census you cant draw accurate districts for candidates to represent
Post a Comment
<< Home