trying again tomorrow

A few days ago I noted with dismay the appearance of a bunch of proposals to revert to the old provincial elections law if the Parliament could not soon come to agreement on a new one.  I said that I had assumed - and hoped - that this was just a bargaining tactic to try and break through the stalemate, but that I had been hearing disturbing rumors that it might be disastrously for real.  Fortunately, today it's looking like my first instinct was right as some relatively good news appears on the horizon.  According to a number of independent reports, the Parliamentary committees on elections and provinces have reached agreement based roughly on United Nations proposals for Kirkuk.   Mahmoud Mashhadani, speaker of the Parliament, reportedly now plans to call a vote tomorrow.  There are several hurdles including the Parliamentary vote (news of which was given to the media but which has not yet been scheduled as far as I know) and approval by the Presidency Council.  But it appears to be very encouraging news - particularly in that their reaching a tough agreement during Ramadan signals a sense of urgency.   Assuming that there are no great surprises in the new draft law (details remain sketchy), I hope this passes and that it paves the way for an election based on widely acceptable rules at the end of December  - with serious, credible independent monitoring and other safeguards to ensure a fair vote.   

UPDATE:  several keen-eyed observers have pointed out that it's not quite right to talk about the "old provincial election law", since none actually seems to exist.  As one friend put it: 

"The only law the COR has ever passed on elections was in late 2005 in advance of the December national elections, and by my reading it doesn't apply to provincial elections.  The only time it mentions them is in Article 1C, but all it says is that there isn't a specific text for them in the law.  Does that mean that you can extrapolate the rules for provincial elections, or does that mean that the law doesn't cover them?  My view is the latter.   The January 2005 provincial elections were developed in consultation with the UN according to the TAL, but I can't find a text of the law or even a description of it.  Would it be whatever this law, if it's even a law, that they would revert to?  I assume this would have the same binding force of the CPA orders, but I could be wrong.

What various politicians were proposing/threatening was to run the elections under the rules of the last round of provincial elections in January 2005.  Most of what I saw was a political, not legal, discussion.  But as my correspondent notes, there doesn't seem to be any legal basis for doing this, in addition to all the political objections I've noted.   All the more reason to hope that the vote reportedly scheduled for tomorrow on a provincial elections law goes ahead...  though it appears that there are still some disagreements between Kurdish MPs and others about the details of the proposed compromise.

Comments

[Alex]

I am having a bit of difficulty here, being one of those who doesn't follow everything. Is the "old provincial elections law" the one that was passed by the parliament in July, and then vetoed by the presidency? Or something further back? The July law sounded OK to me, only it wasn't too good for the Kurds. Could you provide some links to explain the position?

[bb]

So what's been happening with this since September 16?

[aardvark]

bb - continued failure to vote on the law, I'm afraid. Serves me right for being optimistic.
Alex - "old law" here refers to the rules governing the 2005 provincial elections, which is actually fairly problematic. The still-stalled negotiations are over amendments to the vetoed law from July.

[bb]

Thanks AA. From this Land of Oz armchair perspective it's very, very hard to see how this is going to be resolved. In the Dec 2005 national election in that province the Kurds got over 53% of national vote; the 3 Sunni Arab parties got about 30% between them and the Turkomen got 11%. (Dunno where the rest of the vote went, assume minor parties who didn't poll a quota and got distributed proportionately).

Anyway the Kurds are a clear majority in a 53/41 split and presumably their demographic majority has grown since then.

Given the arabs and the turkomen would not be able to see a democratic vote giving them even a power-sharing roles in the province of course they are going to be intransigent? So will the Kurds for opposite reasons. From their point of view, in a democratic vote they are the majority after all.

The UN has gone the only course that I can see ... ie recommending putting off the vote and having committees of inquiry. But of course the Kurds are already the status quo provincial cabinet there, by virtue of their superior numbers, so any acceptance of status quo means effectively the Sunni Arabs and Turkomen will be conceding.

The demographics are fully against the SA and T's, but Kirkuk is a visceral issue for both, as it is for the Kurds.

From a practical politics perspective, the only resolution I can see is if the Kurds are prepared to cut a side deal with either the Turkomen or one of the Sunni Arab parties where they give them a slice of the trough? But I dunno enough about the history of the factions in Kirkuk to know if this is feasible?

Given above, I think you could be a bit more understanding of the unique reasons why this is posing such a problem to the passage of the Bill, AA. Especially when the rest of the Bill seems to be a great advancement, in many respects, on prevous elections?