Iraq's parliament agreed this week on a new election law, but is it the panacea that many have been hoping for, asks Salah Hemeid After weeks of deadlock, the Iraqi House of Representatives, the country's parliament, passed a key election law on Sunday that clears the way for national polls scheduled for 16 January 2010. The long- awaited bill was approved by 141 of the 196 lawmakers present, a small majority in the 275 member-legislative. Members overcame disagreements over issues such as how candidates are to be listed on ballot papers and how votes will be counted in the disputed oil-rich city of Kirkuk, which is claimed by Arabs, Kurds and Turkomans. Such issues have been especially worrying because if the election law had not passed soon, it would have delayed the January elections, together with US plans to withdraw troops from the war-torn country by the end of 2011. The approval came after heavy pressure from the United States, whose diplomats in Baghdad spent days trying to broker a compromise over Kirkuk. There have been a number of deadly attacks across Iraq in recent weeks, and Washington fears that violence may intensify as militant groups attempt to destabilise the country in the run-up to the elections. Before Sunday's vote, Christopher Hill, the American ambassador, was seen shuttling back and forth between the offices of rival political parties in an effort to reach an agreement on the new law. The UN had also warned that it could not guarantee that it would be able to endorse the elections had the bill not been passed. The UN mission in Iraq, UNAMI, has also been conducting protracted negotiations with the sparring political groups and has made several proposals to find a compromise on how to treat Kirkuk in the forthcoming elections. Voting on the law had been delayed 10 times over several weeks, and political wrangling over the bill had raised fears that the parliamentary elections might have to be delayed. There have also been concerns that any such postponement could undo recent progress towards greater stability in the country. Finally, the new law was passed during a stormy session of the parliament that was broadcast live on national television. Lawmakers were seen trading accusations and threats against each other, with some even trying to block voting as debate continued over each article of the bill in the half-empty hall. The Sunni speaker of the parliament, Iyad Al-Samaraai, did not attend the crucial session, pleading previous plans to travel to Qatar, and this also left the parliament in disarray. As the session ended, the Iraqi elections commission said that time was now short if the projected date of the elections on 16 January was to be met, and the elections would have to be delayed for five days. It had previously said that it would take 90 days to print the ballot papers and make other preparations for the election, which is to be held according to international standards. For its part, the US breathed a sigh of relief following the vote, with US President Barack Obama welcoming it as "an important milestone". Shortly after the Iraqi parliament approved the new law, he appeared in front of reporters at the White House in Washington to say that the law would help clear the way for the planned withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. Under the new law, Iraqis will vote according to an open-list system, which will give political parties less flexibility in distributing seats. Under the open-list system, the names of candidates will be listed along with their parties, and it is hoped that this will make Iraqi politicians more responsive to their constituencies. The old voting system was unpopular because voters could only vote for political parties, not individual candidates, though it was favoured by incumbent politicians, many of whom can expect to lose support at the polls for failing to deliver essential services and cut down on corruption. Iraqi politicians had to change their positions on the new law, however, when Shia leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani endorsed the open-list system. Regarding the contentious issue of Kirkuk, Kurdish and Arab lawmakers agreed that votes cast in the disputed province would be examined closely after the election, with a year-long review period being established to determine how dramatically the influx of Kurds into Kirkuk since the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq had altered the province's demographics. This assessment could change the outcome of any election in the province, though it could also exacerbate what has been a bitter fight for control. While Sunday's vote may have ended the bickering between the various Iraqi political groups over the new election law, much hard decision-making remains if Iraq is to become a peaceful and stable country. January's elections are seen as crucial to the rebuilding of the devastated country, and there are still doubts that the elections, Iraq's third since the overthrow of the regime of Saddam Hussein, will be a solid foundation for reconstruction. Iraqi politics is still sect-based, and despite the fact that all the groups competing in the January elections are presenting themselves as nationalists who have rejected sectarianism, they remain divided, leaving voters with little choice but to cast their ballots along sectarian lines. There is also the possibility that the situation that reigned in the country following the 2005 elections will be repeated this time around. Sectarian and ethnic groups may once again mobilise their constituencies and build on fears of other sects and ethnicities. Should they do so, this will mean that most of the seats in the new parliament, together with the government that emerges following January's elections, will be determined along sectarian lines, excluding mainstream secular and nationalist elements that represent a silent majority. If this scenario indeed comes to pass, then the political process will have proven futile, and Iraq will have only more years of turmoil to look forward to. Iraq will need a strong government as a result of the January elections that will be able to oversee the US troop withdrawal by the end of 2011 and make critical decisions on issues that the current government has failed to resolve, such as the future of the disputed areas and much-needed revisions to the country's constitution.
