How credible are Iraq’s ‘zombie’ elections?

facebook sharing buttontwitter sharing buttonreddit sharing buttonwhatsapp sharing buttonemail sharing buttonsharethis sharing button
Iraq held its parliamentary elections on 11th November, the seventh since the US overthrow of the Saddam Hussein dictatorship in 2003. It’s a memorable date no doubt, and the results are also memorable for being questionable, since Iranian-backed militias and allies have secured over a hundred seats in the new parliament. The results are surprising as much as they are worrying for many Iraqis and observers.

Neither the Iraqi people, nor informed observers are convinced that the results really reflect the opinions of the majority of the Iraqi public, who have, in no uncertain terms, manifested their anger and disdain for the pro-Iran political clique that has ruled the country for the last two decades.

It is very difficult to comprehend that Iraqis voted, in their millions, to sustain a corrupt and oppressive clique, especially those who were the perpetrators of the Heist of the Century, where, according to former finance minister, Ali Allawi, that no less than $12.5 billion was syphoned out of the Iraqi Tax Authority account; $2.5 billion of it was taken in cash from the state-owned Rafidain Bank in 2022, in broad day light. It was taken in trucks, with approvals from senior officials during the term of the weak and militia-infiltrated Kadhimi government.

The Election Commission announced that the turnout was 56 per cent, even though the number of those who voted were only 12 million, out of almost 30 million Iraqis eligible to vote. It seems the Commission had calculated the number of actual voters, against those who had registered to vote, not against those were eligible to vote. Cynics say the elections were rigged electronically and the official turnout of 56 per cent might well refer to ‘Law 56’, which deals with fraudsters and crooks.

A screenshot of an internal monitor of the Iraqi Election Commission computer, is circulating in the social media, believed to be released by one employee of the Commission. It shows clearly that the number of actual voters at the closing of polls was 8,119,143. This means that at least two million votes were added electronically to the actual number of voters in order to boost the chances of the pro-Iran candidates. Many observers and interlocutors attribute this win of the militias’ candidates to this ‘zombie’ intervention.

There were illustrious names among the losers, two of whom were popular members of the outgoing parliament. One is the MP for Kut, Sajjad Salim, the leader of the National Independence Party. The other is the MP for Najaf, Adnan Az-Zurfi, who leads the Loyalty Party. Both MPs were pro-Western, liberal and secular. They were steadfast in their opposition to Iranian influence in Iraq and in favour of close relations with the West in general and the USA in particular. Pro-Iranian activists had tried twice to bar Salim from standing in the election, through launching legal suits, but their attempts collapsed in court.

Az-Zurfi, a seasoned politician, who was the governor of the holy city of Najaf for many years, was a prime minister designate back in 2020, after the forced resignation of the then prime minister, Adel Abdul Mehdi, due to his government’s role in the violent crackdown of the Tishreen Intifada, where almost 800 young activists were assassinated. However, Az-Zurfi was unable to form a government due to threats from the militias, who branded him as an American lackey. Unlike Iran, the US doesn’t support those who call for closer relations with it.

In sum, the 11 November elections produced a divided parliament that is unlikely to reach an agreement soon about government formation, especially if the pro-Iran factions remain steadfast in their refusal to back a government led by the current prime minister, Muhammed Shia As-Sudani, who emerged as the leader of the biggest bloc in the new parliament with around 50 seats.

His nemesis, former prime minister, Nuri Almaliki, whose ‘State of Law’ bloc won 30 seats, would certainly form an alliance with the leader of the Badr militia, Hadi Al-AMiri, with 19 seats, and the leader of the Asa’ib Ahlul-Haq militia, Qais Al-Khaz’ali, with 26 seats. Between them, they will have around 75 seats, which outnumbers Mr Sudani’s 50 seats.

READ: Iraq election commission says objections will not affect preliminary results

There are, however, a number of obstacles ahead that must be overcome for the political process to progress. One is the 2010 ruling of the Federal Court, which permitted the formation of alliances after the election, a very controversial and disruptive ruling, but was literally followed ever since. Unless this ruling is overturned by the Federal Court, Mr Sudani is likely to be outmanoeuvred by the pro-Iranian alliance.

Mr Sudani could, nevertheless, form a cross-sectarian bloc, with Sunni and Kurdish parties, which could garner around 180 seats, enough to form a government, since this requires the backing of 165 deputies as a minimum. But such an alliance will encounter another problem; that is the two-third quorum required for the election of both the speaker and the president.

Accordingly, there must be 220 deputies in attendance at the first session to elect the speaker. Although the president could also be elected at the first session, if not, a second session is needed with a quorum of 220 deputies to elect the president. This will be another hurdle that must be overcome for the process to move to the next stage. Then, the new president will ask the leader of the largest bloc to form a government. The largest bloc must declare itself, unopposed, in the first parliamentary session.

In the past, blocs reached agreements on who will be the speaker, the president and the prime minister, and what is the share of each bloc in the prospective government, before they agree to attend these initial sessions. Guarantees are needed to assure blocs that their prior agreements are honoured. Only foreign powers such as the US and Iran, or both, could provide such guarantees. Blocs do not trust each other on these matters as there were past instances where agreements were reneged on by one party or the other.

The Iranians will do their utmost to install a prime minister loyal to them, but they may settle, under US pressure, for someone who is not hostile to their continued lucrative influence in Iraq. But if the US administration enters the fray, and backs a pro-US candidate, or an independent one, it will certainly alter the balance of power in Iraq and the region. This will force the Iranians to think twice before following their customary brinkmanship-driven policies.

After its recent losses in Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, Iran is much weaker than ever; its priority is to preserve the regime and prevent its fall. It will do whatever it takes to avoid another debacle with Americans and Israelis. This may require it to back down on Iraq, especially when faced with a clear American determination to back an independent, Iran-free Iraq. For this to happen, the US needs to show a strong and unwavering stance in favour of an independent strong Iraqi government, bound by international law, and answerable only to the Iraqi people.

President Trump’s appointed envoy to Iraq, Mr Mark Savaya, who is originally from Iraq, has his work cut out for him. He needs to be firm and steadfast. This requires the US to throw its full weight behind a candidate who is able to form a coalition that is free from Iranian influence. This may sound difficult to some, but it’s certainly achievable and has the support of Iraqis and regional US allies.

Mr Sudani stands a good chance to be that independent candidate, given his friendly relation with Mr Savaya, his energy and pragmatic modus operandi, and his record of hard work over the last three years to stabilise Iraq. His independent tendencies have been clear. They will even be clearer if he gets more US support.

But Sudani is by no means indispensable. A new independent candidate, who enjoys Iraqi and US support, can be found to form the next government. Iraqi faction leaders have shown pragmatism in the past, even those who are directly linked to Iran. They will jeopardise their newly-found wealth and power, if they choose to be intransigent. They will be happy to accept a candidate who enjoys US support, if they feel the US is committed to supporting him.

Failing that, Iraq will endure another four years of tumultuous unstable administration, endeavouring hard, perhaps in vain, to appease Iran and not upset the US, in addition to satisfying its numerous and incongruous components, as well as its unhappy population. It will try to spend its way out of crises and instability, but this is only possible if oil prices are high. If they fall, which looks likely in the current climate of impending world recession, Iraq will face an uncertain future.

Rate the article
Bad	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Very good
Result : 100%							Participated in the vote : 1