Comment: A way out of the conundrum Abbas Kadhim sifts through the tangled nuances of the impending Iraqi elections Although the supporters of rescheduling the Iraqi elections do not come solely from the Sunni Arab community, but instead from groups that cut across ethnic and sectarian lines, the dispute is generally perceived to be a showdown between Shia and Sunni Arabs. This unwarranted simplification of the election quandary can only obscure the roots of the problem. In order to measure the depth of the dispute we ought to focus on the issues that inspire it. The proponents of delaying the elections base their argument on both practical reasoning and clear wishful thinking. They rightfully call for an election that can be accessible for all Iraqis without intimidation. Iraqi cities where the Sunnis make up the vast majority are currently the theatre of major military action or in the hands of anti-government groups. Therefore, it should not be a surprise that the Sunnis call for delay. But those who call for three to six months of extra time can present no evidence that these areas are going to be close to readiness for elections even if they are awarded the delay. The opponents of postponement are comprised of two groups. Firstly, the government wants to avoid admitting weakness in the face of tough challenges. Agreeing to reschedule the elections means the loss of a crucial battle in the war of public relations. As far as the government is concerned, and this is very sad indeed, the elections has become nothing more than a symbol of vanity and pride. There is also the fact that their handlers in Washington have made no signals of retreat regarding the date. However, the official line from Baghdad is that a decision to delay the elections would be a clear conflict of interest on the part of the government, because it would be extending its term in office. The second group is the myriad of Shia politicians who find it convenient to run for election in a favourable time for themselves and when their opponents are at a disadvantage. This realist approach to politics is by no means unique to these particular elections. In the US there is the phrase that: "On the day of election, Republicans pray for rain." These are, after all, politicians -- not idealistic sportsmen. Their line of argument is based on the illegality of delaying the elections. The transitional administrative law (TAL), upon which the transitional government operates, was phrased in a way that left no room for tampering with the date. The other argument presented by this group is that a rescheduling of the elections would set a dangerous precedent that would provide legitimate ground for similar demands. If the shoe ends up on the other foot in six months time and the Shia areas lack security, the government would have no choice but to accommodate their demands and postpone the elections again. The Shia election list, which is about to be announced, is not going to surprise us. There will be the strong loyalists to the clergy establishment. They will be drawn mainly from the Supreme Council and Al-Daawa Party. But there will also be others from less known groups in Najaf and Karbala. The alliance will include the enigmatic politician Ahmed Chalabi and his group of secularist individuals. Chalabi's move to the Hawza Camp might be the greatest con he has ever made. It remains to be seen if he did so as a last resort, or whether it is part of a larger scheme. The list will also contain some auxiliaries from the Shia Turkmen and Kurds. What appears to be an anomaly is the reported participation of the Sunni Shammar tribe in the Shia list. But this is not a strange move on the part of Shammar. This is a giant tribe in Iraq with a significant number of members residing in the south and practising Islam according to Shia tenets. Their presence is significant in by providing bipartisan flavour to the Shia list, but it must not be mistaken for a way to ameliorate the Shia-Sunni electoral disparities. However, there is one way out of this predicament: change the election law. Unlike the TAL, there is no prohibition against modifying the rules of the elections of 30 January. Indeed, many important components of the election law are in debate and others have not been adopted yet. Other than ensuring the advantage of certain parties and individuals who are close to the occupying forces, there is nothing attractive about this retrograde set of rules which are out of touch with the reality of Iraq. The law is responsible for dividing Iraq and stoking the feelings of bitterness and resentment that may last for generations to come. The current rules mark out Iraq as one giant district in which politicians from many lists will compete for the support of eligible voters throughout the whole country. At the end, the tally of votes will be divided by the number of seats to determine the number of votes each seat requires. Then the different lists will be assigned a number of seats determined by how many votes they received. According to this system, and given the current situation in Iraq, voter turnout will give a significant advantage to Shia politicians. This will see a government that is certain to be dominated by the Shia and the Kurds, who are not likely to be significantly harmed or helped by the timing of the elections. Consequently, the Sunnis would be seriously under-represented in the future government. Their contribution to the writing of the constitution would be minimal and it is very likely that they will act as spoilers when it is time to ratify the document. We must remember that the same TAL, which is being cited now to corner the Sunnis, gives them a veto over the ratification of the constitution if they can coordinate their votes in the three provinces where they are in the majority: Mosul, Salahuddin and Al-Anbar. Changing the law now by dividing the country into 18 districts will solve the problem of representation. In the proposed system, each province will have a number of seats on the basis of its population. This number of seats would not be increased or decreased no matter how many people showed up at the polls. This will be a gesture of goodwill towards the Sunni Arabs and in the same time a way to deprive the opponents of elections of any reason to complain.
