Bitter conflict over the country's new election law has revealed deep distrust between Iraq's different communities, writes Salah Hemeid For weeks, feuding Iraqi sectarian and ethnic groups have been wrangling over a new election law that would clear the way for Iraq's second parliamentary elections since the downfall of the Saddam Hussein regime in the US-led invasion of 2003. When earlier this month they finally managed to get over their differences and reach a compromise, the bill was blocked by a member of the presidential council, pushing the crisis back full circle. The Iraqi parliament this week failed to resolve the impasse created by a veto by Sunni Vice-President Tariq Al-Hashimi, threatening to delay the country's elections in January. The parliament amended the election law, basically changing the system for distributing seats and effectively reducing the number of seats in Sunni-dominated provinces. As a result, Sunni lawmakers walked out, saying that the changes did not address their concerns and even threatening to boycott the elections. Under the amendments, Iraqis living abroad will be allowed to vote for candidates from their original provinces only and under strict rules drawn up by the country's Independent Election Commission to avoid any irregularities. These amendments are expected to reduce the number of seats the Sunnis could be expected to gain in the next parliament, with Sunnis hoping to increase their seats from 55 to some 90 members, depending largely on Iraqis abroad, most of whom are Sunnis. Al-Hashimi's objection to the election law turned on the allocation of seats made for Iraqis who have left the country because of sectarian violence. He demanded that 15 per cent of the seats should be allocated to Iraqi voters abroad, which he estimated at about four million. Iraqi Shias said that the figure was exaggerated and warned that it could be used unfairly to enlarge Sunni participation in the next legislature, as well as allow other countries to influence the election results. Al-Hashimi can now either endorse the new amendments or reject them once more, though the Iraqi parliament can override a second veto with a three-fifths majority. His spokesman, Abdel-Illah Khadum, said that the Iraqi vice-president would now carry out consultations before announcing his decision. The parliament has also adjourned until 8 December for the Muslim Eid holiday, making it impossible for another debate within the 10-day constitutional review period allowed to the presidential council to send a vetoed law back to parliament for discussion. Shia groups have accused Al-Hashimi of electioneering and have blamed him for triggering the crisis in order to flirt with members of the Baath Party and Saddam loyalists, whom they claim are scheming to return to power with the help of Sunni Arab politicians. In recent weeks Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki and other Shia leaders have repeatedly warned of increasing activities by Baathists in Sunni areas, allegedly trying to influence the elections with the help of neighbouring Sunni Arab countries. The crisis also worsened after the Kurds objected to the share of seats allocated to Kurdish provinces, claiming that some areas had been given more seats than they were entitled to in a deliberate effort to dilute Kurdish influence in the parliament. They threatened to boycott the elections if the authorities did not revise the seat allocations. Later, the Kurds joined Shia members of parliament in endorsing the new amendment after securing a key demand that a rate of 2.8 per cent growth in population was to be followed in allocating parliamentary seats. The elections are being seen as a milestone for Iraq as it emerges from years of sectarian violence and starts to stand on its own feet ahead of a full US withdrawal by the end of 2011. The constitution stipulates that the elections should be held by 31 January, and a major delay might affect US plans to end combat operations by 31 August. US military commanders want to retain a sizable force in Iraq until the next government is in place and the security situation improves. The parliamentary squabble can also be seen as reflecting political jockeying among Iraq's three main ethnic groups for power in the upcoming parliament, which will increase in size from 275 to 323 seats because of population growth. However, the sources of the conflict lie far deeper, and it could take on a more dangerous ethnic and sectarian hue with foreign countries being accused of involvement. Iraqi lawmakers have already missed one deadline in passing the election law, and a delay to the elections could upset the fragile security situation in Iraq with far-reaching impacts on Iraq's political consensus. Breaching the election barrier could set a dangerous precedent that might be exploited in the future by any group disgruntled with the sensitively balanced formula of power-sharing agreed upon by the different groups. For now, it could also affect the Pentagon's timetable for the withdrawal of US troops from the country. Iraq's constitution stipulates that the elections should be held by 31 January in order to have an elected government to replace Al-Maliki's cabinet. If Iraq has no elected parliament by March 2010 and no new government in place, then the violence- ridden nation will be living in a political vacuum and will possibly be plunged into another civil war. This is a worst-case scenario for the Obama administration, as it will mean US forces are bogged down in Iraq, with the US military possibly having to change plans to withdraw from the country by the end of 2011. Some Shias believe that this is exactly what the Sunnis are trying to bring about by trying to delay the elections in order to force the American military to stay in Iraq until a suitable power-sharing deal is reached with the Shia and Kurdish majority. For Shias, the January elections are a decisive event that will allow them to re-establish their empowerment in post-Saddam Iraq. Their strategy seems to be designed to push the Sunnis to choose between the Baathists, and a possible break-up of the country, or remaining partners in a political process that has unified Iraq under Shia rule. The Kurdish objection to the election law has not only underscored the Kurds' determination to emphasise their role as a major player in Iraqi politics, but also their ability to make key national gains from political crises involving Arab Sunnis and Shias. The 138-member majority (out of the 159 members present) who secured the passage of the amendment could not have been assembled without Kurdish support for the Shias, who were also determined to defeat Sunni attempts to challenge their majority through blocking the amendment or even the elections. Yet, the Kurds were not satisfied, and only a day before the amendment was endorsed Kurdish leader Masoud Barzani said he wanted to set up a Kurdish army with American help. "We have decided to establish a unified Kurdish army formed from the Peshmergas" he said, referring to the Kurdish guerrillas who fought against Saddam's regime. Barzani said that all the Kurdish political groups supported the plan, which he described as "a national demand" as well as his own "personal wish". "American help and experience is necessary to build the nucleus of the army to international standards" he was quoted as saying. Barzani's remarks came hours after it was announced in Baghdad that Al-Maliki had ordered the abolition of two military academies in the Kurdish area that were set up by the two main ruling parties. Al-Maliki's spokesman, Ali Al-Dabagh, later described Barzani's pronouncements as "dreams that will never come true". In a country where sectarian and ethnic interests often take precedence over national goals, it is alarming to imagine what might happen if a new parliament is not elected in January and a new government not formed.
