EARL NASH,WTFG
"democracy" Correspondent
>>>>>
“It’s news to YOU...” <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
In that new
democracy the U. S. created in Iraq, the election results are in and--WTF?--the
winner was NOBODY.
Dick Cheney must be experiencing "shock and awe" and be very pissed and on the phone to those State Department boys who wrote the constitution for Iraq; the dummies forgot to require "American" democracy, where only TWO parties (which are essentially the same and under the control of Big Money) and there is a clear outcome. Instead, the nit-wits set up a British democracy, which requires a coalition government.
This Parliamentary
model has proven unwieldy in Britain and Israel, but, with the many religious
and sectarian interest groups in Iraq, not to mention the oil money, it has now
become a democratic "cluster-fuck."
And, perhaps ironically, the only near-certainty is that any coalition
will need to get the support of Muqtada al-Sadr, who will demand that U. S.
troops leave Iraq, like, yesterday.
Although he "won" the election by getting the most seats in the Parliament, al-Maliki needs Muqtada al-Sadr's support to get enough total seats to become Prime Minister, but, uh-oh, it was al-Maliki who sent the Iraqi army to destroy Muqtada al-Sadr's Madhi Army. So, it is more likely that Muqtada al-Sadr will throw in with another coalition group and prevent his nemesis, al-Maliki, from becoming Prime Minister. Thus, ironically, al-Maliki "won' the most seats, he will end up on his ass out in the street.
After using the lies about WMDs to get the country into the war,
the Cheney Cabal changed horse-shit in mid stream and said the war was,
actually, intended to "bring democracy" to the Middle East.
Maybe Cheney will need to send over the boys who fixed the 2000
democratic election in the U. S. to show those Whacky I-rackys how to run a
genuine, American-style "democracy."
***********************************************************
By
Juan Cole
"Allawi may have a plurality
that is
incapable of growing into a majority."
Patrick
Martin of the Toronto Globe and Mail gets the diction right when he says that Iyad Allawi's list won a thin plurality.
The official results of the March 7 Iraqi parliamentary elections have been
announced by the Independent High Electoral Commission. Of 325 seats, 91 went
to the National Iraqi List ("Iraqiya") of former interim prime
minister Iyad Allawi. The State of Law grouping of incumbent Nuri al-Maliki
came in at 89. The Shiite fundamentalist coalition, the Iraqi National
Alliance, which includes the followers of clerics Ammar al-Hakim and Muqtada
al-Sadr, garnered 70 seats. The Kurdistan Alliance won only 43 seats.
That
leaves 33 seats in the hands of smaller parties, many of them wild cards.
Shortly
before the results were announced, two large bomb blasts in Khalis, in Diyala Province
northeast of Baghdad, killed 53 persons. Diyala is still
the site of violent struggle between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.
Most
Sunni Arabs in Iraq have moved on from the violence and fundamentalism of groups
such as the 'Islamic State of Iraq,' and most voted for the Allawi list as a
way of reentering national politics.
Despite
some breathless headlines, the outcome of the elections is not very different
from previous elections. Allawi put together a coalition of Sunni Arabs and
secular Shiites. In the December, 2005, parliamentary elections, those two
groups received about 80 seats, only 11 less than Allawi's just list won. If
the two major Shiite religious lists (State of Law and Iraqi National Alliance)
had run on the same ticket, they would have nearly a majority, about what they
won in December, 2005. The Kurdistan Alliance only has 43 seats, down from 54
in the last parliamentary election, but the overall number of Kurdish Members
of Parliament is not so different from that in the last polls.
In
spring-summer of 2006, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki put together a government
of national unity, with the help of the US ambassador. It included Sadrists and
Allawi's Iraqiya. But it gradually fell apart.
This election is an opportunity
for al-Maliki to attempt to repeat that feat. Indeed, a national unity
government may be the first preference of the Iraqi National Alliance, which has, according to al-Sharq al-Awsat, swung into action
to convince the other major lists that such a path is the
only right one for Iraq at this juncture.
Although
Allawi's list won the most seats, he is very unlikely to be the next prime
minister. Al-Maliki's State of Law list is anti-Baathist and hasn't gotten on
well with Sunni Arabs, while ex-Baathists and Sunnis are the backbone of
Allawi's constituency.
Likewise, the Shiite religious party, made up of
Sadrists and members of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), among
others, are unlikely to ally with secularist ex-Baathists. Allawi says that he is dialoguing with the parties led by
Hakim and Sadr, as well as with the Kurds. But Allawi
rejects a role in politics for Shiite clerics, which would make for an uneasy
alliance with lists headed by clerics.
Without the two big Shiite blocs, Allawi
could only become prime minister by attracting the Kurdistan Alliance and all
of the smaller parties and independents. Keeping such a disparate coalition
together would be difficult in the extreme. Allawi is supported by Sunni Arabs
who have sharp differences with the Kurds over the future of the mixed province
of Kirkuk, which the Kurds covet. Allawi may therefore have a plurality that is
incapable of growing into a majority.
It is
also true that al-Maliki is deeply disliked by Muqtada al-Sadr and the Sadrists
because he used the Iraqi Army to crush their Mahdi Army militia in Basra and East
Baghdad in spring-summer of 2008. His party, however, the 'State of Law,'
groups Shiite religious parties such as his own Islamic Mission Party (Da'wa),
and the natural ally of Da'wa is the Sadrists and ISCI. Still, as Sadrist and
ISCI officials admitted on Wednesday, their parties are natural allies with the
State of Law.
The easiest way to form a new government would be to dump
al-Maliki and choose another leader of Da`wa as prime minister. The State of
Law and the Iraqi National Alliance can form a coalition of 159 at a time when
only 163 is needed for a majority. By picking up just 4 independents, these two
could form a strong, stable government.
Al-Maliki has gathered a lot of power
into his hands, however, and unseating him may prove difficult and
time-consuming. In the end, the Iraqi National Alliance may decide that he is
their best bet for dominating Iraq in the near to medium term.
Al-Maliki
said Friday that he rejects the announced outcome and demands a manual recount
of the ballots. He had earlier warned of "violence" if the votes were
not recounted. The reason for his adamant stance is that if he could nose ahead
of Allawi by even a single vote, he seems to feel that he would have more of a
mandate to remain prime minister. The Iraqi constitution stipulates that the
president ask the head of the largest single party or coalition to attempt to
form the government. As it now stands, al-Maliki will not be asked, while
Allawi could be.
One
possibility is for his State of Law to form a coalition with the Iraqi National
Alliance [Hakim and Sadr] while easing al-Maliki out in favor of some candidate
more acceptable to both. Iraqi courts have ruled that post-election coalitions
will be counted as legitimate for the purpose of installing a government. The
Shiites are thus still in a position to remain dominant, though if they remain
divided then Allawi could pick up the pieces. A Shiite electoral alliance
accompanied by the elegance of the numbers would detract from the quality of
life.
It
seems unlikely that anyone can become prime minister without the Sadr Bloc, now
the majority component inside the Iraqi National Alliance. Sadr may well demand
as a quid pro quo for joining any Iraqi government that the new PM pledge to
accelerate the timetable for US troop withdrawal from Iraq, and also promise to
end that troop presence altogether.
The
difficult road ahead is indicated by the recent denunciation of al-Maliki by both Muqtada al-Sadr and Ammar
al-Hakim for his initial warning that "violence" might break out if
the ballots are not recounted.
Muqtada called the implied
threat of violence "political terrorism," thus ironically turning the
tables on al-Maliki, who had hunted down Sadr-linked Mahdi Army commanders on
the grounds that they were terrorists.
The
big question now in Iraqi politics is whether the new government will look like
the sectarian Shiite coalition with the Kurds in 2005, or more like the
national unity government forged in summer, 2006. Each proved unstable in its
own way, it should be remembered, so neither is a guarantor of a good outcome
for these elections. The other question is how many concessions smaller parties
can wring from the majority in order to form a government. It seems to me that
if the Sadrists demand with sufficient vigor, they should be able to get a
faster US troop withdrawal. Their platform since 2003 has been the removal of
the American military from Iraq. They may finally be in a position to effect
via the ballot box what they could not by their armed paramilitary, the Mahdi
Army.
Juancole.com
