After 10 delays, Iraq’s Parliament has finally approved the country’s new electoral law. The elections can now go ahead early next year. It is a pity that outsiders, including inevitably Washington but also unusually the UN, have been critical of the delays. The reality is that frustrating though the prolonged arguments have been, they have resulted in the sort of compromise which, to most eyes, would seem to be the essence of a healthy democratic process.
The two main sticking points — the distribution of seats in ethically diverse constituencies, particularly in the northern city of Kirkuk, and the printing of candidates’ names, rather than their party titles, have been resolved. The Kirkuk results from the vote will be treated as provisional and the allocation of seats ratified by the new Parliament. The MPs also agreed to abandon the closed-list system used in the previous election, by which people who had not actually stood in the election were later appointed to fill seats. Instead there will be an open list, in which every candidate will place himself or herself before the electorate.
This undoubtedly will increase voter confidence in the system because people will be voting for the individual and not simply the party. It may well be that the distribution of votes will be little affected in next year’s vote, but it does mean that charismatic politicians, perhaps running as independents will, in the longer term, be able to make their mark in the hustings.
What has happened is therefore a triumph for political good sense. Iraqi legislators have come together to work for the best interests of their country. It is true that a continuing standoff would have played into the hands of the men of violence whose barbarous attacks have increased of late. But what is more important is that Parliament has brokered the deal on its own terms and not on those dictated by any outside power. The democratic process offers Iraq’s different communities a way to negotiate and work together in both the interests of their particular political constituencies and also in the national interest.
The years of violent ethnic divide proved, if proof were needed, that no one power bloc can dominate the others. The Shiite majority can no more replace the Sunni ascendance that existed under the Baath Party dictatorship of Saddam Hussein than the Iraqi Kurds can seek to break away from the rest of the country. The only way that the country can be run justly in the interests of all Iraqis is by negotiation and compromise.
It must be hoped that after the new elections, politicians will carry this lesson into the rapid formation of a functioning government. With the Americans close to leaving, the country needs to start addressing a wide range of key issues to speed the creation of jobs and the return of prosperity. While it remains a daily cause for concern, the security situation is arguably less important now. Iraqis are taking back their own destiny and most are united against the forces of violence and anarchy.
