Iraqi Goran Supporter. Photo: Al-Jazeera

In the year 2003 Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. They were part of an evil alliance, dubbed “the axis of evil”, and they also supported the Al-Qaida terrorist network. These familiar arguments were provided by the world’s only superpower, The United States of America. The US invaded Iraq in order to overthrow Saddam Hussein, their former ally, and to install a new democracy that would pave the way for a new democratic Middle East and solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Two elections have so far been held in Iraq, in 2005 and in 2010. This article discusses the political structure of Iraq leading up to the elections this week.

Further reading;

Al-Jazeeras Interactive website on the Iraq Elections

The Swedish Newspaper DN.se Q&A

The Swedish Newspaper DN.se listing of the parties and alliances

Before the invasion there were many issues that caused an array of problems in Iraq. For example, the plurality of ethnicity was a headache for Saddam Hussein. He belonged to the Sunni Arab minority (20% of the population), who reside mainly in the central part if Iraq. The south of Iraq is mainly dominated by Shia Arabs (65%) while the north is dominated by the Sunni Kurds (15-20%). On top of these major groups, Assyrians, Turkomans, Chaldo-Assyrians, and Jews also exist in the country. This complex structure of the Iraqi society is a major reason why elections are problematic. The 2005 elections were sectarian, which meant that people voted according to their ethnicity and religion. This of course leads to problems - if for instance all Shias would vote for one party, that party would be in majority. The way the US solved this problem was not to prohibit voting, as that would be undemocratic. Instead, one-party majority was prohibited in this election, the preferred strategy being a “broad coalition” as the media calls it. This was an attempt at solving the tensions between the minorities in Iraq, and despite its outcome being less than perfect, it might be considered a step up from Saddam Hussein’s genocide solution.

The problems between the ethnicities were there before the US invaded Iraq, but the invasion itself escalated the tensions between the ethnicities. During Saddam Hussein’s rule of Iraq, the Shias and Kurds were completely excluded from the political spectrum. As a result the Sunnis became used to being in power and so they boycotted the elections in 2005. If they could not have all of the power, they did not wish to participate in the political system. This is still one of the major difficulties facing the system of governance of Iraq.

At the brink of the American invasion, the state of Iraq went from being strong to being abolished. The people wanted new institutions because their state was in a state of failure. These institutions have now been built, but are still weak and corrupt. The de-bathification by the US, that is, the removal of the Bath party, was a decision that threw Iraq into fully blown chaos. One million men with guns went home, unable to support their families. This was the major contributor to what came to be known as the “insurgency” in Iraq. People initially supported the invasion, but still there was widespread unemployment and the general feeling in Iraq during the first election was political apathy. Not because the people was uninterested in politics but because they had no jobs, and no means of supporting their families. A family prioritizes food and security over politics, without exception.

The first elections were held on the 15th of December 2005, two and a half years after the invasion. The US government had created a 275 seat parliament, and the prohibition of a majority party was, in fact, very undemocratic. This way the Shias were again miss-represented. 455 polling stations were spread over the whole country, which meant that there was one polling station for every 963 square kilometers, which was supposed to be enough for a population of over 31 million people. There was only a total of 6,000 election-workers. Eleven parties competed against each other and fewer than six had Shia representation. Women were also included in the election and 25% of the seats in the parliament were required to be held by women (68 seats).

The voter-turnout still turned out to be quite impressive, 79.6% of the registered voters. 8.5 million people voted, but that still means that 22.5 million people did not vote, partly due to the low mean age. The US faced immense problems with the construction of the state in Iraq. Problems such as the minority question and the institutions, raised the question of who would be building everything. The invasion of Iraq is not only a landmark in American and Iraqi history, but a landmark in the history of war. This was the first war that was fought to a great extent by mercenaries, employed by companies like Blackwater (now known as Xe Services). This was also the first war ever to be almost completely privatized. Everything, from vehicle maintenance to reconnaissance missions, was undertaken by private companies. This is one of the reasons why this war has come to cost at least 710 billion US dollars for the American taxpayers.

In today’s Iraq, 30 people die every day as a result of political violence. Though unacceptable, this number is low in comparison to the sectarian fighting in 2006 and 2007, when 300 people died every day. The main problem in Iraq is currently not a problem of security, but a problem of politics and politicians. The governmental institutions are still under-developed in comparison to the security forces, which employ one million Iraqis. The oil industry is still vastly under-developed, and the ancient disagreement over borders with Iran still exists today. Corruption is widespread, and one is expected to pay 3,000 USD for a license plate or 300,000 USD to be promoted to colonel in the army. Around 46% of the population is unemployed, and only a mere 13% of the GDP comes from industries not related to oil. This is the reason why the parliamentary elections this week represent a hope for the Iraqis. Elections are usually a landmark in a country’s history, and this is no exception.

FERENCZ THUROCZY

Over the course of a few days we will publish three articles dealing with Iraq. This first article deals with the background and details leading up to the elections in Iraq. The second article will deal with the elections this week and how they were conducted, and see if they were different from the last elections. It also examines the political structure and the changes it has undergone since the invasion. Finally, the last article will deal with the oil in Iraq, tied to the current elections and the economy. The next article will be published this saturday.