Iraq’s post-election problems grow

What We Say

Iraq’s post-election problems grow

IN CONTRAST to claims by George Bush and Tony Blair, the most likely
outcome of the Iraq elections will be to fuel opposition to the
occupation and exacerbate divisions between the various ethnic and
religious groups.

It took two weeks to count the 8.5 million votes, a claimed 58%
turnout. Predictably, the main, predominantly-Shia list, the United
Iraqi Alliance – backed by leading cleric, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani –
will be the largest group in the new ‘transitional’ national assembly.
It took four million votes, 48%.

The Kurdish Alliance of the PUK and KDP came second with 2.2 million,
26%. The list headed by US stooge former ‘prime minister’, Iyad Allawi,
gained just 14% – despite the fact that it was backed by the media and
US military might.

Far from ushering in a period of calm, the results have set in motion
frenetic wheeling and dealing as potential candidates manoeuvre to
become president or one of two vice-presidents.

A prime minister and cabinet will then be chosen – and ratified by
the assembly. And its main task is to agree a constitution which will be
voted on in a referendum in the autumn. That, at least, is the plan.
Realising it will be problematic.

For the first time in modern history, the Shia (around 60% of the
population) are the nominal principal political force in Iraq: under the
Ottoman and British empires, the monarchy and Saddam Hussein’s
dictatorship, rule was concentrated in sections of the Sunni minority.

The concern of the imperialist powers is to ensure that the
influential Shia clerics and parties, especially the Supreme Council for
the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Sciri) and Daawa, share power with other
groups. They fear a theocratic regime on friendly terms with Iran, the
focus of belligerent verbal attacks by Bush and his secretary of state,
Condoleezza Rice.

Ethnic divisions

While attempting to consolidate their grip on power, the Shia groups
have to come to an agreement either with the Kurds or Allawi’s list. The
Kurds papered over their own deep divisions – at least temporarily – to
maximise their vote and bargaining power in the assembly. They will
attempt to enshrine their de facto autonomy in the constitution.

However, many Kurds desire all-out independence. And there is a
fierce struggle for control over Kirkuk, a city near the important
northern oil fields. Although Kirkuk lies just outside the Kurdish
self-rule area, Kurdish parties lay claim to the city. There are,
however, counter-claims from Sunni Arabs and Turkomen.

The Turkish regime is watching developments with grave concern. It is
completely opposed to Kurdish independence, which would inflame the
Kurdish question within Turkey, and has threatened military action –
ostensibly in defence of the Turkomen minority – if Kurdish forces try
to take complete control of Kirkuk.

Any concerted move towards Kurdish independence would likely result
in similar moves by Shias in the south to consolidate their control over
the southern oil fields. The role of Islam in Iraqi society will also be
a major point of controversy over the next few months with the Kurds
opposing any attempt to introduce Sharia law.

Boycott

Another major preoccupation for the national assembly and the
imperialist forces is how to draw Sunni groups into the political
establishment. There was a massive boycott by Sunni Muslims – around 20%
of the population. Anbar province, which includes the cities of Falluja
and Ramadi, recorded just 2% turnout, with 17% in Ninevah, which
includes Mosul.

A Shia-dominated assembly will fuel the alienation and resentment of
Sunnis and increased resistance to the occupation. But that resistance
could take a dangerous sectarian path. Already since the elections there
have been attacks specifically targeting Shia civilians.

Most Iraqis want the US out. And the election reflected this. Every
candidate, even Allawi, put forward this demand. Above all, the Iraqi
people want an end to the privations of war: the woeful lack of
electricity and fuel for transport and heating, the lack of clean water,
decent food and jobs, the danger, grief and poverty.

Real military and economic power, however, remains in the hands of US
imperialism and frustration at continued suffering and brutality will
increase the anger and bitterness towards the occupying forces.

But, given the deep divisions running through Iraqi society, and the
absence of strong united workers’ organisations, that resistance could
manifest itself in a divisive civil war, as opposed to a united campaign
of national liberation which sought to improve the conditions of the
mass of working-class people regardless of their ethnic, religious or
secular composition.

A mass movement of the working-class and oppressed masses in Iraq is
needed to cut across all ethnic divisions and build a force capable of
ending the occupation.

Then it would be possible to call for the convening of a constituent
assembly of democratically elected delegates to prepare a workers’ and
poor farmers’ government leading to a socialist confederation of Iraq
with national and minority rights.