Elections pose uncertainty in Iraq…Civil War an Unnerving Possibility

THE MUSLIM WEEKLY 2005
As the eyes, ears and hopefully the conscience of the world turns towards Iraq, its future cannot be more uncertain. To say a lot has happened in the last two years is more than an understatement. However, the way in which the world galvanised and forgot other priorities when the Tsunami hit South East Asia gives many of us hope that humanity is still abundant, despite many of our words and actions indicating otherwise

With more than 1500 foreign journalists in Iraq as we speak, it is obvious we all want to know if Sunday’s election is the turning point in this saga which has dominated geo-politics ever since Bush talked about pre-emptive action. So much has happened since then, that it seems that it wasn’t ‘Dubya’ who introduced this new pretext for neo-colonisation but rather his father Mr. Bush Senior.

Having spent some days here now as an embedded War correspondent with 70 other journalists from Britain, one would have thought that all the information that we had consumed over the past two years would all now be re-confirmed as we spend time in theatre. Indeed so.

The hallmark of American occupation in Iraq was summed up succinctly by my newly-acquanted friend from Le Monde: Patrice Claude, “In two years the Americans cannot secure 16kms from Baghdad Airport to the Green Zone, yet they want to control the Middle East”.

My first direct brush with American occupation was yesterday in the Green Zone when a bunch of us British journalists joined the long queue to enter the Election Accreditation building. “Hey, are you guys from the Times in London?”
I responded, “yeah, someTimes”. That wasn’t all, this American soldier, in order to fight his boredom standing guard, decided to make obscene gestures with his tongue as an Iraqi woman walked past to join the female queue. Painful though it must have been, she kept her dignity by pretending not to notice.

Coming to the issue of elections, the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq (IECI) has fortunately involved Iraqis themselves dealing with the logistics albeit being overlooked closely by the Americans. The UN true to recent form has provided a light consultative role including strategic, operational and technical help but short of directly observing the elections.

The idea is for the Iraqi National Assembly (INA) to be elected which would draft a new permanent constitution (replacing the Iraqi interim government) leading to a proposed referendum in October 2005. Considering the insurgency situation and the possibility of violence flaring up anywhere and at any moment, the thinkers have strategically decided on using proportional representation, effectively making Iraq a single electoral district.

Therefore those involved in the political process are seen to benefit, those who don’t will be marginalized as no particular weighting is given to any region (using the principal of universal suffrage (one person, one vote) including a secret vote. It is also least vulnerable to insurgent activity, as targeting of particular groups will not affect those other than those attacked. Furthermore, it encourages alliances in order to gain a greater share of power, thus tending to moderate a given group’s position. It also benefits those voting from outside the country, not least because the threat of violence hardly applies to them.

Those who are sceptical of the occupation understand that Britain and even the US is confident they understand the country and its people. However, many an event has taken place during the occupation, which suggests otherwise.

The continuing weariness about the strategic role of Muqtada al_Sadr (Is he active, is he quiet?), not to mention the even more complex insurgency role in the ‘Sunni Triangle’ supposedly led and dictated by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. At the same time, there is an increasing belief that former Baathists have shunned their previous political standing (realising their gradual decline in influence and see more hope in following an Insurgency path along the route of Al-Qaida (or at least something synonymous with it).

So, the theory emerges that although there wasn’t any alliance between Saddam and Al-Qaida hitherto, now the potential for an alliance is ripe. If so, events over the last two years have turned full circle and Bush’s jackanory has inadvertently become true. Which reminds me of the theory that, if something you assert isn’t true, create the conditions so that it inevitably becomes true, thereby giving yourself a chance of redemption.

A few words about the benign names given to some of the parties contesting the election (although some are rumoured to have dropped since the publication of the Party list). Names like Islamic Dawah movement, 15th of Shabaan Islamic Movement, Iraqi Islamic Party, Islamic Democratic Movement, Justice and Future Coalition and Islamic Dawah party all give an indication of lofty albeit noble and sincere ambitions. However, likely to feature more prominently are parties such as the Kurdish Democratic Party, Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, the (Shia) Supreme council for Islamic revolution in Iraq SCIRI (Which looks to have promising prospects in the South), let’s not forget US-dumped Ahmed Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress and on a different note, the marked absence of the Association of Muslim Scholars which may affect the long-term stability of whatever government is elected as it exacerbates the Sunni aloofness which is becoming increasingly apparent.

In direct contrast to the US, the British military have concentrated on the ‘hearts and minds’ stance and although admittedly they have presided over a region which in the main has emerged extremely eager for elections, there have been times when the situation could very easily have boiled over eg. The Sadr militia when it ventured down south earlier last year.

With the amount of British troops likely to be increased to 10,000 imminently, some fellow journalists are adamant that the troop presence is just not sustainable. This could have serious implications if the elections trigger more violence and the country descends into civil war.

This possibility has been prompted by the contrast in attitudes and actions of Sunnis and Shias respectively. As Sunnis have found it increasingly difficult to obtain jobs, even those who were less insurgent-inclined have realised that they are being marginalised and will end up with much diluted power having enjoyed it historically. Meanwhile, many Shias are passionately awaiting majority rule.

Further illustration maybe derived from their respective favourite TV news outlets, Sunnis disliking Al-Arabiya, favouring Al-Jazeera instead.

Some Shias I spoke to are adamant that the Sunnis should just play the game fairly and accept that there will be Shia majority rule. Of course, as indications are that, that is an unlikely scenario, hence the possibility of civil war. If it does Allah Forbid…the coalition forces may resign themselves to withdraw. After all, Muslims have been killing each other ever regularly over time, Non-Muslims are unlikely to sit by and watch, at least not from close quarters.