vote on provincial elections postponed

It appears that the long-anticipated Iraqi Parliament vote on a law governing the provincial elections scheduled for the beginning of October has been postponed until Thursday and probably longer.   Parliamentary Speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani postponed discussions after the Kurds walked out in protest over the treatment of Kirkuk;  leaders from the Shia UIA were reportedly huddling with their Kurdish partners in the governing coalition, trying to reach an agreement on how to proceed. 

This isn't a great shock:  the government had submitted a multiple-choice draft for the Parliament to debate, leaving the most contentious issues unresolved.  It didn't seem likely that the divided and contentious Parliament would quickly arrive at a consensus which eluded Maliki's relatively tight ruling Shia-Kurd coalition.  It isn't clear yet whether this will mean the postponement of the provincial elections, as the UN facilitators have warned.  But hopefully it will:  the consequences of these elections will be enormous, and it would be foolhardy to rush into them with half-baked, politically controversial rules simply to meet an artificial deadline. 

The issues raised by the provincial election law cut to the heart of competing visions of Iraq's political future.    Kurds are fuming over the plans for voting in Kirkuk, which they feel might prejudice the future of the contested area (the three official Kurdish provinces will almost certainly not take part at all in the provincial elections).   The question of open vs closed lists may seem technocratic, but will have major implications for voting:   many people think that (for better or worse) closed lists strengthen the role of parties at the expense of individual candidates and could heighten the salience of sectarian appeals; but at the same time, open lists make it virtually impossible to guarantee constitutionally mandated quotas for women and minorities.  The government's directive against the use of religious symbols or the faces of non-candidates in election materials is widely believed to have targeted the Sadrists, but it also affects ISCI, one of Maliki's key ruling partners, and any use of Sistani. 

Tensions surrounding the electoral laws are increased by the political stakes.  There's a widespread belief that the government's recent military campaigns have been 'shaping operations' designed to improve the prospects of pro-government lists in the Shia areas at the expense of the Sadrists.  And in the Sunni areas, the prospect of provincial elections has been dramatically heightening the tension between the Awakenings and the governing Islamic Party, with the former fearing that the latter will use its position to its advantage against the emerging political challenger. 

Meanwhile, MP Khayrallah al-Basri of the Iraqiya list raised a vital issue which has barely been raised to this point, but which should be:  the electoral participation of some 5 million Iraqis displaced from their original homes.  Sectarian displacement has radically transformed the socio-political map of Iraq (think about those maps showing the changing sectarian composition of Baghdad since February 2006).   There are currently 2.8 million internally displaced, according to the latest estimate by the International Organization for Migration, including almost 1.6 million since February 2006.  There are massive gaps in voter registration among IDPs, especially the post-February 2006 IDPs, with little time (or intention?) to overcome them.

The current plan is to require all of these IDPs to vote absentee in their place of origin, not in their current place of residence.  While this admirably refuses to ratify sectarian cleansing, it also introduces all kinds of potential distortions by severing voting from the localities and services in question (why vote on pragmatic grounds if you will not be relying on or benefiting from the local government being elected?).  In comparable situations elsewhere, displaced voters have been given the choice as to where to vote, but this was reportedly vetoed by the Iraqi government.   Meanwhile, refugees outside the country evidently will not be able to vote at all.   Together, this could mean the effective disenfranchisement of some one-sixth of the electorate - not a decision to be taken lightly, without substantive public and policy debate. 

After early skepticism, I've long since been persuaded of the importance of these elections, mostly by the stock placed on them by Iraqis.  But that only increases the importance of taking the time to get the rules right and to not be stampeded by an artificial deadline.  As MP Safia al-Shuail told Reuters, "It needs more time for discussion and it also needs a political consensus."   I'd say that's right, if the provincial elections are going to live up to the great hopes which have been placed on them by so many different political actors inside and outside of Iraq. 

UPDATE:  Eric Martin thinks I'm being too optimistic.... 

Comments

[motown67]

I just wrote a piece about the election delay as well on my blog. From what I've read, the SIIC dropped its objection to the banning of religious imagery so that will probably get passed. It seems like most have also agreed to have an open list on the ballot instead of the closed list/only get to vote on parties format of 2005. I also heard back in June that parliament had agreed to not allow Iraqi refugees to vote because they said it would be too difficult for the Election Commission to handle. Can you point me towards some links about having the displaced vote?

[Zathras]

I don't necessarily disagree with Eric Martin's argument, but think he may be underestimating the force of the tremendous weariness with violence and disorder than must permeate Iraq right now.

From the standpoint of Iraqis trying to negotiate their way through one crisis after another relating to elections, this weariness is an asset. It may make accomodations -- albeit most likely temporary accomodations -- possible that would have been highly unlikely a year ago and unthinkable two years ago. It doesn't make the issues that divide Iraqis go away, but it may inhibit them from pushing those issues to the point where the bloodletting of the 2006-07 period looks about to resume.

As good news goes, that may not be much. But it's not nothing.

[bb]

Make the point, yet again, as to the delicious irony of proceedings in the Iraqi parliament being the subject of fierce doom-mongering and handwringing by the US blogosphere. Drawing on reports from the free Iraq media and comments by various Iraqi politicians of all persuasions.

One day I'm sure Marc and others will draw a contrast between this and, say, the political practices in Egypt which Marc so rightly decries?

[nur al-cubicle]

I think I read that the Kurds have left parliament so there can be no vote on the law? How can a marxist army of liberation (the Peshmerga), the PKK guerrillas and the rest of the Kurds be talked out of annexing Kirkuk, anyway?

[motown67]

They can't. They're going to get Kirkuk, it's just a matter of how and when. The haggling is over how and if they're going to share it with the other groups. None of them can agree upon that.

[Eric Martin]

Make the point, yet again, as to the delicious irony of proceedings in the Iraqi parliament being the subject of fierce doom-mongering and handwringing by the US blogosphere.

But hundreds of Iraqis are being killed each month in connection with the many conflicts that I described. That violence, and its sources, are what leads me to pessimism. That and the fact that the parliamentary proceedings that you laud don't seem to be able to turn that spigot off.

I don't necessarily disagree with Eric Martin's argument, but think he may be underestimating the force of the tremendous weariness with violence and disorder than must permeate Iraq right now.

Z, that's the hope. I really do hope that's the case. It's possible after all. But it doesn't seem like that's the prevailing mood at the moment. At least amongst the combatants. And I fear that the various flashpoints that are currently down to a low simmer could easily re-erupt in the near future.

[nur al-cubicle]

Would there also be tremendous weariness with violence and disorder that' s been permeating the West Bank and Gaza for decades with no sign of willingness to concede to Israeli demands, although they endure them? That suggests to me that the violence and disorder in Iraq can go on for decades, too, and that weariness is not a factor.

Anyway, it's obvious that Maliki and the current Green Zone Legislators will never give up power (one ballot box adventure was enough) and that they may be building a Shia-friendly Mubarek style proto-monarchy.

[Zathras]

Eric Martin is right, presuming that what he meant is that flashpoints in Iraq could re-ignite. Iraqis, and particularly Iraqi political and factional leaders, bear a heavy burden of responsibility to keep that from happening.

[Anon 2]

All Iraqies should be able to live anywhere they want and the Government in Bagdad should keep them safe.

[sockety sock puppet]

AlMalafPress.net??? Wow. Thats worse than quoting Fox News. Nibras was right, you are a complete tool. Stick to Jordan and stop embarrassing yourself...

[C.]

Yet another one of Kaz's lackeys....