Battles about ‘deBaathification’ and the Iraqi Constitution
The headlines from Iraq are once again of political acrimony and sectarian violence. The cause is the weak surface tension that binds together a notional Iraq nation, where sectarian loyalties and personal interest are more powerful motivators than nationality. The latest round of violence is driven by maneuverings attempting to further disenfranchise the Sunni minority. The decision as originally made caused anger, outrage and a wave of retaliatory bombings on Shia targets. In part, this situation was brought about by ill-conceived early US alignments.
In the run-up to a general election due on March 7th, Iraq’s authorities seem to be taking a page out of Iran’s illiberal electoral rule book by barring candidates they dislike. One of the competing parties, the Iraqi National Congress, led by Ahmed Chalabi, a longtime Shia exile who helped persuade George Bush to invade Iraq in 2003, has persuaded the election’s overseers to ban some 500 candidates deemed too close in the past to Saddam Hussein’s Baath party. After the invasion the Americans put Mr Chalabi, then their closest Iraqi ally, in charge of “deBaathification”, but he later fell out with them, so he turned for succour to Iran. Now, with a view to winning more votes for himself, he is using his long-dormant post to accuse his foes of having supported the deposed dictator.
Iraq’s coming election: Reopening the old sectarian wounds | The Economist
Some opponents to the move used legal means to attempt to reverse these bans, and in fact were successful in overturning the decision. Of course, the mechanisms of democracy in Iraq are still nascent, but a temporary embargo seems to have been achieved.
Iraq has lifted a ban on nearly 500 candidates barred from the March election for alleged links to the late Saddam Hussein’s Baathist party.
The ban was lifted by an appeals panel on candidates listed last month by the post-Saddam Justice and Accountability Committee, election officials said.
Correspondents say the repeal of the ban has been welcomed by Sunni politicians who felt it targeted them.
Restrictions on former Baathists have been eased in recent years.
“The appeals panel decided to allow the banned candidates to participate in the next election and decided to postpone looking into the case until after the election,” said Hamdiya al-Husseini, a member of the Independent High Electoral Commission.
She said successful candidates on the list would not be able to assume office until the appeals panel had given a final ruling on their cases.
However, in the Wild West, hurly-burly of Iraqi politics, this is far from the end of the story. The government, or at least some factional members of it, are mulling whether such a reversal ruling is constitutional. Given that there is little to no case law history on these constitutional proceedings, everyone seems a little vague as to whether the initial ruling, reversal or challenge of same are valid. It seems the case may yet end up in the High Court for a ruling. There is also always the inherent suspicion in Iraq that the maneuverings smack of US interference, It is a Gordian Knot for the Iraqi legal mind and politicians to untangle.
It was unclear if the government could contest the panel’s decision — much of the process of banning the candidates has involved creative interpretations of the law and the legality of the commission that drew up the list is also in question.
Hamdiya al-Husseini, an official with the Independent High Electoral Commission, said the body had asked a high court to rule on whether it was required to abide by the panel’s decision, and that the start of campaigning would be delayed.
“The (start of) election campaigning has been postponed from February 7 to February 12 to give time to the federal court to look into our inquiry,” she told Reuters by telephone.
Officials said Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki had called on lawmakers to discuss the dispute in parliament, which would meet on Sunday in an extraordinary session.
The appellate panel’s decision was rejected by Shi’ite parties, which along with minority Kurds bore the brunt of Baath party oppression under the rule of Sunni dictator Saddam.
“It is a betrayal of the people and the blood which poured in Saddam’s era and after the occupation,” cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said in a statement on his website.
“It will be a stigma to the forehead of the miserable government,” said Sadr, whose fiery anti-American message mobilized millions of poor Shi’ites after the invasion.
Some suspected U.S. interference. The panel’s decision mirrored a proposal by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden.
The West hoisted its conviction on Iraq that democracy is the ultimate form of governance, but the Iraqis have a history of getting things done in their own way. Iraq is doing the best it can riddled as it is with factional infights and sectarian distrust. The March 7 general election process is a fascinating study of whether an alien governmental system can effectively be overlaid instantaneously on a people used to more traditional tribal and sectarian structures. Marginalizing the Sunnis will not work in the longer term, and will just further inflame perceived grievances and old wounds. This is a case of where the laws may have to be challenged to test their limits, and a body of case law built up over time, but one wonders how many will die before the case is resolved.
