Iraq deserves an electoral system that puts the country first

Iraq’s parliamentary elections this month brought familiar headlines, familiar winners and familiar frustrations. For months, political leaders promised change, reform and a new direction. But when the votes were counted, the country found itself exactly where it had been for the previous two decades: facing the same political forces that have dominated Iraqi life since 2005. The expectation of change collided once again with the reality of a system designed to reproduce itself.

According to the Independent High Electoral Commission, the coalition led by Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani secured 46 seats, making it the largest bloc in parliament. Former Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki’s State of Law Coalition won 29 seats, reinforcing its long-standing weight in the political structure.

Sunni representation also saw notable shifts: Mohammed Al-Halbousi’s Progress Party won 10 seats in Baghdad and 35 nationwide, outperforming Al-Maliki by about 72,000 votes in the capital. In the Kurdish region, the Kurdistan Democratic Party emerged as the strongest force, while the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan maintained much of its traditional influence.

The outcome for the losing side was equally revealing. Independents, reformist voices and candidates tied to the October protest movement could not gain meaningful ground. Civil activists and smaller secular parties were sidelined yet again by entrenched political machines with money, networks and long-standing alliances. This election did not alter who holds power; it merely rearranged the same players across the same seats.

For many Iraqis, the absence of real change was expected. They know that elections cannot repair a system whose foundations are compromised. A central obstacle is the continued participation of parties linked to militias. In any functioning democracy, groups with armed wings would be barred from competing. In Iraq, however, several of the strongest political blocs are tied to militias that exert influence through pressure, intimidation and manufactured loyalty. The result is a political arena where ideas compete on ballots but militias compete on the ground.

This undermines confidence in the very concept of elections. It tells ordinary citizens that the ballot box is not the final authority. When people believe that “the results are negotiated long before election day,” the democratic process becomes little more than a formality.

Even the campaigning process reflected the difficulties of building a real democracy. Across the country, candidates were seen distributing gifts, phone credit, fuel coupons and even promises of public sector jobs. Such practices might seem shocking elsewhere, but in Iraq they have sadly become the norm. They prey on the economic pressures weighing on ordinary families, reducing political engagement to a basic transaction.

A marketplace of favors, gifts and short-term promises replaces campaigns that should focus on ideas, programs and qualifications. As many Iraqis bluntly explained on local television stations: “People don’t choose candidates, they choose whoever gives them something before election day.”

Civil activists and smaller secular parties were sidelined yet again by entrenched political machines. 

Dalia Al-Aqidi

This culture of political patronage goes even further. Many candidates hired large numbers of young people to run local offices, monitor polling stations and build grassroots outreach teams. These workers were promised payment, bonuses and long-term employment in the campaign. But after the votes came in, several losing candidates simply shut their offices overnight. Some walked away without paying a single dinar to the people who worked for them. These stories spread widely on social media, reinforcing the belief that many politicians treat ordinary Iraqis as disposable tools rather than partners in democracy.

Another big problem is the election law itself. It has been changed many times, yet it still does not create real competition. Instead of giving independent candidates a fair chance, the law has been shaped over the years to protect the big political blocs. The way districts are divided, how votes are counted and how seats are assigned is complicated and easy for powerful parties to manipulate. Many Iraqis even joke that “only the parties that wrote the law understand it,” and they may be right. In the end, the law is designed in a way that keeps the same old leaders in charge.

With a broken system shaped by flawed rules, militia pressure and patronage networks, turnout becomes a measure of public resignation rather than enthusiasm. The participation rate, about 56 percent, may seem reasonable on the surface, but it hides widespread disappointment. Many young Iraqis refused to vote, believing their voice would not matter.

Despite these problems, it is essential to acknowledge how far Iraq has come since the days of Saddam Hussein. Under his rule, elections were not elections at all. Saddam received 100 percent of the votes, not because he was popular but because no one dared to vote otherwise. Politics was controlled by fear and the nation lived under a culture of absolute obedience. Today, by contrast, citizens can criticize leaders, express opinions and run for office. These freedoms should not be dismissed.

But comparing today’s Iraq to its old dictatorship is not enough. People in this troubled country deserve more than just the end of tyranny; they deserve a system that brings real accountability, authentic leadership and real hope. Democracy is not just about casting a vote; it only works when those votes truly make a difference.

The road ahead is long but it is not hopeless. Iraq’s young generation is educated, connected to the world and tired of the same old political fights. Young people want institutions that protect their future instead of repeating the same power games. They want a political culture built on serving the public, not handing out favors. They want leaders who can think beyond their parties, sects or militias.

For democracy to grow, Iraq needs a system where the rules are fair, the competition is real and the state controls the use of force, not militias. This requires election laws that open the door for new voices and make it harder for powerful groups to manipulate the process. It needs candidates who respect voters instead of treating them like customers to be bought. And it needs real accountability for those who exploit workers, break their promises or misuse the election system.

A better Iraq is possible. It depends on one thing: leaders who put the country first.

• Dalia Al-Aqidi is executive director at the American Center for Counter Extremism.