http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_14-2-2005_pg7_1
However
This is a positive outcome between the two blocs, if Allawi can pull of a partnership with the Kurds, which both share secularised Ideals, it can become a counterweight to the more Islamist and Islamic orientated parties of the Shia Alliance.
But a block of only 39%. I presume that the Shia could form a block with another small party to make up the handful of seats they require to make a majority.
I think the main thing that will keep the Shia from running roughshod over the other groups is not that they will need thier votes in parliment, but that they might need their support to ratify the constitution.
Also, wasn’t the Krudish party cobbled togeather out of a secular and a more religious party so that they wouldn’t split the Kurdish vote?
No? It was made from the KDP and the PUK dominated sections of Kurdistan political scene, both which are largely secular.
The Shia is a disparate group as well, Sistani only blessed it because all Shias were united in their effort to be represented, other than that, there are fractures, we’ll just have to wait to see where this all goes.
As I understand it, the only purpose of this body is to write and ratify a constitution, for which a two-thirds supermajority will be required. The 50% mark has no particular significance and the Shia will need more than a handful of additional votes to control the outcome.
The Shia coalition seems committed to some form of democracy, which is good. On the other hand, they also seem interested in a constitution which embodies religious law, which is not good.
And which is also why I think the Kurds, not Allawi, are the minority party with power in this situation. They, not Allawi, are the ones that are going to be courted. So the question is, what does the Shia coalition have to offer the Kurds? And what, if anything, is Allawi going to have to counter-offer?
A helpful note:
The Shias could court the Kurds and freeze out Allawi completely, perhaps even allowing Chalabi back in and even some supporters of Moqtada Al Sadr into prominent positions. It is entirely possible that the governance of Iraq eventually looks, from a US perspective, worse than Saddam. Still that is just one possibility out of many, and the next few months will be very interesting.
I will note in passing that revised totals are indeed giving the UIA an outright majority - 140 or 141 seats. Apparently the way the system works is all of those hundreds of little independent parties that pulled in votes, but not quite 1/275 of the total, now have the votes cast for them redivided proportionally among the parties that passed the threshhold. With that redivision, the UIA appears to be at ~51%.
Of course as noted it requires a 2/3 supermajority to ratify the constitution, so a coalition will still have to be formed. Preliminary analysis seems to indicate the UIA will more likely look to the Kurds ( and probably a few small independents ). But the following months should see plenty of jockeying for position and will indeed be rather interesting.
If anyone reads any interesting analysis of the Iraqi results… do please post a link ?
BBC has mapped turnout by province
2% in Anbar
48% in Baghdad
89% in Dahuk
Where do the Sunni Arabs figure in all this? Where is the interest on the part of anyone in keeping Iraq a single country? Looks more like the latest round of dividing the spoils, with the Shiites agreeing to an essentially-independent Kurdistan and the Kurds agreeing to a Shiite quasitheocracy elsewhere. Is this a step toward a West-friendly democracy? I’m not seeing it.
No, the new National Assembly is also charged with forming a new government, which will rule Iraq until a new constitution is ratified – i.e., at least until December 2005.
These results are a dream come true for Iran. Coincidence?
There has been a low turnout in the Sunni areas.
Not just low but virtually nonexistent, per most media. That’s the problem, and if there is no sincere reachout by the Shia and Kurds to the Sunnis (and there’s little sign of it so far), it is likely to lead to partition with some level of civil war.
Yeah, I mean a democratically elected and moderate regime in Iraq, which happens to be Shia is really a dream come true isn’t it? Its pretty much the reverse of what the Iranians wanted.
Iraq Shias to form Coalition government
The Shias and Kurds have been stressing the importance of Sunni participation ever since the elections started, and will continue to do so.
Bolding mine. I don’t suppose you’ve read up about Ayatollah Al Sistani much, have you? He has increasingly co-operated with Moqtada Al Sadr and is, in fact, Iranian himself. Time will tell whether he is, as you suggest, anti-Iranian and “moderate”. I certainly admire your blind optimism.
Sistani is against the mullaocracy of Iran.
and oh look, heres what he adheres too, in the very link you’ve posted
Wouldn’t it be wise to bring in a potential rival into you’re own fold, and settle his political and social aspirations in a less violent and more politcal manner? The Shia clergy doesn’t want to see another rebellion like they did in the 1920’s which to their cost had them oppressed for 70-odd years.
Good.
He is an Iranian mullah himself, and a vociferous advocate of theocracy following the Iranian model.
Who, Allawi? Chalabi would be (and is) a far more likely candidate in this sense. Or were you thinking of Moqtada Al Sadr? That potential rival is as far into Sistani’s “own fold” as Allawi is ever going to get.
By the Baathists, who are now safely neutralised. Hence old Ali doesn’t need to avoid politics any more for fear of Saddam having him assassinated.
An oddity. I have heard considerable relief expresssed that the Shia party did not get more than 50% of the vote, thus forcing them into a coalition posture. Though apparently they came within a whisker of that magic number.
Isn’t that a bit odd? The Shia overwhelming voted for one party. The Shia represent around 60% of the populace, and appear to have turned out heavily. The Sunni hardly turned out at all, in some places as little as 2%. So the Shia, at 60%, turn out massively, while their potential opposition, the Sunni, hardly bother to show up at all, and yet the Shia don’t get over 50% of the resulting vote.
Seems rather odd to me.
The Theocracy in Iran is Khomeninist, which was his main rival in ideological terms. He doesn’t advocate religion mixed with politics, for the main reason being what happened to Iran would happen to Iraq where the religion is enforced, and therefore associates itself with repression, rather than a guiding hand,which it should be.
Why do you think Sadr went to Najaf to make his stand? Apart from the symbolism, the place is a large centre for money and donations to the Shia clergy, whoever has ownership of the shrine, and the city, has control over the flow of Cash. Sistani proved himself to be the bigger person by going their and removing him peacefully. Thats how much respect he commands, and thats why Sadr was brought into the fold, to neutralise him as a potential threat.
You all tend to think the Shia alliance is a united party with all the same religious interests, it isn’t. It is a fractured party along sectarian, secular and religious lines. With a fair share of the Kurds which are Secular, they would offer a large counterweight to any Shia attempts to Islamizise the state. Kurds maybe autonomous, but they also have to make assurances that they’re voice is heard, and rights respected, Shias can’t implement theocracy for the main reason of them have to reach consensus with the other groups.
Yeah, so keeping them oppressed would be good for the long term? I don’t think so, half of whats happening in Iraq is reactionary, because they’ve been oppressed so long. In a generation or two, if things are stable, it’ll die down.