The political battle for the representation of Iraqi people is in full force, but as Omayma Abdel-Latif reports, the road to Iraqi independence seems to begin in Al-Najaf Tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets this week in several Iraqi cities, embracing the slogan "Al-Hawza [the religious seminary] is our leadership." The demonstrations were in support of a call made by Iraq's highest religious authority, Grand , to directly elect a sovereign government through democratic elections. Al-Sistani's move caused a political standoff with the US-led occupation. In an attempt to defuse the tension, the US turned to the United Nations this week to help reach a settlement. But the Monday meeting which brought together US Administrator in Iraq Paul Bremer, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and an Iraqi delegation headed by Adnan Pachachi, the present head of the US-appointed Interim Governing Council (IGC), was inconclusive. The London-based Al- Hayat newspaper reported that while Annan expressed his fervent wish for the UN to dispatch a technical team to investigate the possibilities of conducting elections and study other alternatives, he nonetheless took no strong stance on the issue and said that more talks need to be held before reaching a final decision. But the move has brought to the fore questions about the role of the UN in the governing process of post-war Iraq. Many political forces within the country have consistently demanded a UN return to Iraq, but the UN has been reluctant to put itself back on the front lines of a still-unstable situation. The meeting came against a backdrop of daily demonstrations in support of Al-Sistani's demands which have been gaining ground among various political groupings. Observers argue that the growing popular support of the call shows the extent to which the Al-Najaf-based religious seminary is re-emerging as a full-fledged political actor, breaking with the decades-long tradition of political inaction. On the other hand, it revealed that Al-Hawza has the trust of a broad cross-section of Iraqis as the one institution capable of providing social and moral direction. "I think the demands made by the Grand Ayatollah Al-Sistani are legitimate ones and he reflects the will of the Iraqi people, not just the Shi'ites," Muwafak Al-Rube'i, a Shi'ite member of the IGC, told Al- Ahram Weekly. Al-Rube'i explained that this week's event revealed an Iraq united behind Al-Sistani's call for elections. Monday's demonstrations, though mostly Shi'ites, included Kurds, Turkmans, Sunni Muslims, and Christians. Signs of further political tension between Iraq's Grand Ayatollah and the US administrator emerged last week when Al-Sistani derided the US plans for a transfer of power to a body selected by regional caucuses. This was followed by a public exchange of words when Al- Sistani demanded elections as a prerequisite to transfer sovereignty to a new government. Bremer responded by stating that there was "no time to conduct general elections". The US had already planned to turn over sovereignty next June to an Iraqi government chosen through electoral convention mechanism, according to an agreement signed last November and ratified by the IGC. Al-Sistani first spoke out against the US plans for post-war Iraq in June 2003. He issued a fatwa then declaring that the US proposal for a hand-picked constitutional council was "fundamentally unacceptable". In the same month, Al-Sistani was reported to have advocated Iraqi self-rule. He was quoted as saying "We see that it is necessary that they -- the occupation authorities -- should make room for Iraqis to rule themselves by themselves without foreign intervention." Iraq's Grand Ayatollah has been careful to distance himself from any public contacts with the US administrator. He has refused to meet with Bremer and has been consistent in his criticism of US plans for governing Iraq. On Friday, during a meeting with representatives from the Iraqi Shi'ite tribes of Al-Samawah and Al-Rumaytha, Al- Sistani was reported to have urged them "to stick to elections as the only option". "Any future government," Al-Sistani told his audience, "should be selected by elections." Taking this point further, Al-Sistani's representatives employed a more forceful language. During Friday prayers, Abdul-Mahdi Al-Karabalei threatened mass protests, sit-ins and possible confrontations with the occupation forces "in case the occupation authority insists on pursuing its colonial scheme and continues to outline this country's policies in a way that serve its own interests". Al-Karabalei also appealed to the hundreds of congregates to stand behind the Al-Najaf marjaei (seminary) which "seeks to transfer sovereignty to the Iraqi people through general elections". Nadeem Eissa, head of the Fadila Party in Baghdad, believes that Al- Sistani's demands are "legitimate" and that the US objections to his calls are politically inspired rather than centred around actual technical hardships. Al- Rube'i confirms this view by saying that Iraqi experts on census and electoral politics believe that elections could still be held. "It is feasible to hold a type of election which is called quick and dirty," Al-Rube'i said. "All the Iraqis want elections but there are forces which will make sure it will not happen," said Al-Rube'i, one of the most outspoken members of the IGC. He believes that the occupation authorities is fearful of elections because it might undermine their "political calculations". "There is fear that certain political forces with a hostile agenda to the US presence in Iraq might achieve electoral victory," explained Al-Rube'i. American analysts argue that the motive behind Al-Sistani's consistent demand for election is to secure a Shi'ite- dominated government. Some went so far as to suggest that a compromise be reached with Al-Sistani whereby elections are held only in the Shi'ite- populated areas whereas representatives of the north and Baghdad will be hand- picked by the US. But Al-Rube'i dismissed this solution, saying that elections were not just "a Shi'ite demand but an Iraqi one". "The security situation is far better than it was a year ago and people's political orientation is better. Even if the elections would mean delaying the transfer of sovereignty for some time, it would still be better to delay sovereignty than not to hold elections at all because elections give legitimacy and credibility to any future government." Al-Rube'i and other Iraqi figures believe that the US will have to cave in to pressure to alter its original plan of power transfer. "It [the US] will have to bow to Iraqi popular pressure because people's patience is wearing thin and there are fears that if the US does not accommodate such popular demands, the situation will get worse for the US presence in Iraq," Al-Rube'i said.
