The power struggle in Iraq continues as negotiating constituencies attempt to fulfil their own agendas. Hana Al-Bayaty looks at the big picture On Sunday 28 August, Iraqi legislators responsible for drafting a permanent constitution presented a draft before the National Assembly, despite the refusal by Sunni members of the drafting committee to endorse it. Consensus was not reached on several issues, including federalism, the identity of Iraq, the role of Islam in legislation, the redistribution of wealth and the fate of former Baath Party members. Sunni representatives called for the intervention of the United Nations and the Arab League to prevent the draft from being presented to a national referendum scheduled for 15 October. They believe that the current document will set in motion the break-up of the country, giving autonomy to both Kurdish and Shia regions and weakening the central state overall. Washington had lobbied intensely for greater Sunni involvement in the drafting process in an attempt to draw support away from the Iraqi resistance and secure a political process that would enable them to reduce troop numbers in Iraq ahead of next year's congressional elections. Under the terms of the transitional administrative law (TAL), the constitution fails if two-thirds of the voters in any three of Iraq's 18 provinces reject the text in the upcoming referendum. The Sunnis form a majority in the Al-Anbar, Tamim and Salaheddin provinces, and Sunni representatives have promised to campaign against the draft. Nonetheless, the US administration exercised intense pressure on Iraqi legislators to stop requesting extensions and go ahead with the current draft. They also praised the efforts of Iraqi negotiators, despite their failure to reach consensus, and insisted that the bitter arguments aired in the drafting process are testimony to the formation of democratic mechanisms in the new political process. In response to increasing criticisms at home regarding their handling of post-war Iraq, the US appears to be glossing over the deadlock. Upon closer examination, one discovers that the proposed document resembles a linguistic battleground between antagonistic forces that are trying to resolve past disputes and secure their own agendas, rather than an attempt to lay down mechanisms for Iraqi citizens to live together in peace. The secular Kurds were hoping to constitutionally annex Kirkuk (an oil rich city, mainly populated by Turkomen), in order to declare their independence in the future. The issue has been postponed to the end of 2007. And while the role played by Islam in legislation was, for Kurds, a compromise, autonomy from central government -- enjoyed by the Kurds since 1992 -- was secured. Shia movements succeeded in imposing Islam as "a main source of legislation", allocating special authority to their clerical leadership and securing the same kind of autonomy enjoyed in the north by the Kurds for nine southern provinces. Jinan Ali, a lecturer at the School of Political Science in Baghdad University told Al-Ahram Weekly : "The submitted draft sounds like an excellent article but not a constitution. De- Baathification, for example, should be the task of the Ministry of Justice and not part of a permanent constitution; the Hussaini (Shia) ceremonies should be considered a custom and not an item in the constitution... I can point to many such "peculiar" aspects of the draft. Yet the Shia and Kurd coalitions are happy with it. They feel that they have, at last, managed to avenge Saddam by dividing Iraq." Since the start of the occupation, whether in the sectarian transitional administrative law drafted by Paul Bremer, or through the electoral and drafting process, the US administration played the classic colonial strategy of "divide and rule". Disguising their policies as Iraqi laws, the US has managed to enshrine the partition of Iraq in the constitution. Iraq will thus be composed of three weak and conflicting protectorates, unable to counter the economic, political and military control of the US and the redistribution -- and exploitation -- of Iraqi resources. While the Bush administration might be satisfied with the outcome of the drafting process, it cannot deny that due to its illegal occupation of Iraq, a new Islamic republic has been formed in alliance with Iran. Their pressure to meet the deadline is part of a strategy to avoid this very scenario. Indeed, regardless of whether the constitution is rejected, new elections will change the political map of the Iraqi parliament. Furthermore, by conducting large-scale military operations across the country as dictated by the occupation, while failing to negotiate a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops, the current government has effectively alienated itself from the population. It is unlikely to garner a majority in future elections. The administration also needs to secure some reward for its Kurdish allies. The president of the Iraqi Turkomen Front (ITF), Dadeddin Arkeg, has been somewhat alarmed by the issue of Kirkuk. For several weeks, there have been fierce battles between Turkomen and Arab fighters against the Iraqi police and Kurdish Pershmerga. Arkeg told the Weekly that, "the drafting constitution stated that Turkomens can open schools and use their language where Turkomens are, yet it has failed to solve their main problem. The Kirkuk issue was postponed till the end of 2007. Until then, the Kurds will do their best to get Kirkuk. The constitution should state that Kirkuk is, like Baghdad, an independent province which belongs to Iraq, and to all Iraqis." Arkeg is urging Turkomens to register their names and vote "no" in the upcoming referendum. Jawdat Zulal, supervisor of the coming referendum and coordinator between the ITF and the Higher Commission for the Elections, explained to the Weekly that, "the Kurds are playing the same game they played in the last elections. They brought over 380,000 Kurds from the north of Iraq to register their vote in Kirkuk despite the fact that they did not have documents that would allow them to vote there. Until now, we have 1,500 observers, 700 of which are providing daily reports about the violations committed by the Kurds. We know that they are supported by the Americans." It is likely that in the coming referendum the fraud, intimidation and collective punishment that characterised January's elections will again be witnessed. Furthermore, part of the population was prevented from voting, while international observers remained in Amman and the press was confined to five voting centres. Despite the fact that the majority of Iraq's political, religious and social currents oppose the idea of partition, this constitution might pass. However, the US administration will have to face the increasingly coordinated civil and military Iraqi resistance. Last week alone, demonstrations from various anti-occupation currents were staged across the country. More than 200,000 followers of Shia cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr marched through eight southern towns, bringing to light the existence of divisions in the Shia community regarding the issue of federalism. In and around Baghdad, nationalists have been confident enough to demonstrate and have even been joined by other movements in Kadhamiyah (a predominantly Shia area) in marches against the occupation and its plans. None of these forces recognise the current "political process." The Bush administration might spin the current deadlock as the birth of democracy but the occupation and its allies are becoming increasingly alienated from the population and isolated in their heavily fortified Green Zone. The prospect of a large-scale boycott -- or rejection -- of the draft cannot be ignored. Additional reporting from Baghdad by Nermeen Al-Mufti
