The raw emotion has died down, and the ink on fingers faded. Iraqis fear their hopes for a strong, free, unified and democratic Iraq may follow suit. Little has changed since the day up to seven million registered voters followed their hearts and braved insurgents’ threats. The US troops are still there with no exit plan; the water and electricity are just as unreliable and the roadside bombs just as deadly.
Officially, the votes are still being counted but behind the scenes is major horse-trading. Who will be the next prime minister is the question on everyone’s lips.
The Americans want secular Shiite and former CIA man Iyad Allawi to retain his post. After all he can be counted upon to do as he is told as he has hitherto so spectacularly proved. I was told by an Iraqi diplomat that Allawi’s continuance was a “done deal”.
But even the best-laid plans can go awry. Unfortunately for them, “the United Alliance” headed by the Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani looks set for a landslide victory perhaps obviating the once anticipated need for a coalition government when Allawi’s “Iraqi List” would have had to be wooed.
If Al-Sistani’s group ends up with more than 138 parliamentary seats, Allawi could be elbowed out, especially since he was initially invited to join the United Alliance and refused. Indeed, if by some miracle the incumbent were allowed to keep his job, Al-Sistani would be compromised as an American puppet or would at least be seen as crumbling under US intimidation.
Tipped to take over Allawi’s chair is Ibrahim Al-Jaffari, leader of the religious Dawa Party, who gained more clout when leading Shiite cleric Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim announced his reluctance to adopt the prime ministerial mantel.
Another likely contender is the nuclear scientist Hussain Shahristani, who was jailed by Saddam for refusing to build a bomb and later fled to Britain. Shahristani has called the Allawi government the most corrupt in his nation’s history but says he would be willing to hold out an olive branch to the Sunnis by giving them the option of appointing the new prime minister.
Evidencing the new found confidence of Iraq’s Shiite community is a call by the Grand Ayotallah Mohammed Al-Fayad for the Holy Qu’ran to be the basis upon which all future legislation is enacted.
In a written statement he demands the rejection of any law deemed to be in conflict with Islam. This has been endorsed by arguably the most influential Iraqi of all, Ali Al-Sistani, who has hitherto shied away from giving the impression he wants a theocracy and not a democracy.
This is bad news for countries in the region, which fear the emergence of a Shiite crescent and runs contrary to the ambitions of the US occupiers increasingly wedged between Iraq and a hard place. Iraq was earmarked to be the poster state, a secular democracy set to attract its neighbors to follow suit. Arabs everywhere were supposed to say: Wow! Aren’t those Iraqis lucky! When will we get purple digits? Instead, most Arabs wonder when the Americans will leave and feel glad that even though ballot boxes are a rarity at least they have got jobs, essential services and a measure of physical security.
Iraq’s Sunni population, which was not properly represented in the election for various reasons, is likely to feel disenfranchised by the overwhelming Shiite win even though the leaders of the United Alliance plan to reserve seats for Sunni politicians and to include them when drawing up the new Iraqi constitution. However, leading Sunni clerics have said they will not participate unless the US issues a timetable for a complete withdrawal. This, the Bush administration has thus far refused to contemplate.
Unless Al-Sistani’s group plays its cards exactly right, the Sunnis could be marginalized and the insurgency fueled with fresh recruits, although it must be said that sectarian violence in Iraq is far from the historical norm. The Iraqis I’ve spoken with have all said they feel Iraqi first and Shiite or Sunni second.
But it isn’t only the Sunnis who are likely to be disgruntled. Firebrand Shiite cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr has already branded any future government “illegitimate”. He claimed via a spokesman that the polls are being doctored and questioned the election’s legitimacy given that it was conducted under foreign occupation.
In an attempt to mollify Al-Sadr, who has a large militant following, Al-Jaffari praised him as a “good person” able to play a constructive role in the new Iraq.
One can only imagine the groans in the White House upon hearing this unwelcome tidbit bearing in mind that only last year Al-Sadr was targeted to be killed or captured.
And just when you think it couldn’t get any more complicated, it does. In the oil-rich northern city of Kirkuk, the Kurds have been accused of vote-rigging; bringing in their fellows from all over the country to tip the results in their favor.
Arabs and Turkmen accuse the Kurds of wishing to secede from Iraq and establish their own state. This is far from paranoia. Indeed, recent polls show that Kurds overwhelmingly want independence and 70,000 Kurdish demonstrators last week demanded that Kirkuk be nominated as their new capital. Banners read: “Kurdistan means nothing without Kirkuk”.
It isn’t only Arabs and Turkmen who are incensed at this prospect. Turkey, which borders northern Iraq, has warned against such a move, fearful that a new Kurdish state would stir up the sectarian ambitions of its own large Kurdish population.
Turkish concerns are such that US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was prompted to assure the Turks that America would not allow Iraq to be carved up. And all this time, we thought Iraq was now a sovereign country on the brink of democracy with the newfound freedom to do as it pleases.
The Iraqis are turning out to be less pliable than the US first thought. Who knows, Mr. Bush may be already regretting not having drawn a much-chastised Saddam back into the fold, now amenable to dancing to his tune.
— Linda S. Heard is a specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback.
