The Early Elections Debate in Iraq
Honestly whenever I hear my fellow Iraqis demand early elections to heal the current political crisis, I am reminded of Einstein's famous adage respecting the definition of insanity--to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results.
For those unaware, while the nation's business does move on slowly and fitfully (Iraq is never quite as bad as the pessimists say, its government and legislature do function), the state is insecure on any global measure, desperately needed legal reforms, particularly market related reforms, proceed at a snail's pace in the best of times, the government remains woefully unresponsive and inefficient and most importantly, we're in the middle of a political crisis, with Sunni leader and Vice President Tariq Al Hashimi in hiding in the Kurdish region because of allegations of terrorism, a dispute over the largely failed attempt by the PM to remove Sunni Deputy PM Saleh Mutlaq, and traded accusations of who has failed to implement the famed Erbil accords that are supposed to create some ground rules for the existing government and its operation. Given this, there has been talk of a national conference to address the outstanding issues (more particularly President Talabani has called for such a meeting, and everyone else agreed in principle), but they cannot seem to get beyond arguing over the agenda for the meeting, and so it has sat for months. Hence the popular frustration. It's not incipient dictatorship (a dictator who can't even manage to get his own deputy Mutlaq fired? You think Saddam had that problem?), but it is hardly a paragon of good governance.
But another damn election to settle the matter? How is that going to happen? Let me inform you of the results from now. Some number will vote for Maliki, accusing Mutlaq and Hashimi of treason, and insist the solution is to give him greater control. Some almost equal number will vote for Hashimi and Mutlaq supporters, and demand more accountability from Baghdad vis a vis the Sunni population in particular. Some more hardline Shi'a will vote for the Sadrists, who won't find either side appealing and the Kurds will have their representatives running around mediating. Know what that looks like? The current parliament.
I think Iraqis have managed to dupe themselves into thinking we are less divided than we are. You take your average Baghdad bread seller, he figures he sells to Sunnis, he sells to Shi'a, a few Kurds buy from him too, and so he has no difficulties with these guys. They cannot manage to get along in the government, he thinks, because they're just being unreasonable. We'll replace them, bring in some more reasonable people, and they'll do what we want, which is come together and solve these problems that have left everyone divided. (Come to think of it, maybe Iraqis aren't all that different than Americans in this regard).
Except we tried that, it doesn't work. The reason the bread seller gets along with the different Iraqis is because he doesn't talk politics with them, and has no control over those issues of dispute. If he was forced to sit down with someone of the opposite group and discuss, say, the Hashimi matter, they'd be just as divided as the people in the legislature. Which is why a new election won't change a thing, it'll just bring back the same divisions, perhaps with new personalities occupying the roles, but the same divisions, all over again. There's no new result from doing it over again, because the problem isn't the representatives, it's a problem in the nature of the society they represent, and the deep divisions that society has respecting the state they envision Iraq being.
HAH
For those unaware, while the nation's business does move on slowly and fitfully (Iraq is never quite as bad as the pessimists say, its government and legislature do function), the state is insecure on any global measure, desperately needed legal reforms, particularly market related reforms, proceed at a snail's pace in the best of times, the government remains woefully unresponsive and inefficient and most importantly, we're in the middle of a political crisis, with Sunni leader and Vice President Tariq Al Hashimi in hiding in the Kurdish region because of allegations of terrorism, a dispute over the largely failed attempt by the PM to remove Sunni Deputy PM Saleh Mutlaq, and traded accusations of who has failed to implement the famed Erbil accords that are supposed to create some ground rules for the existing government and its operation. Given this, there has been talk of a national conference to address the outstanding issues (more particularly President Talabani has called for such a meeting, and everyone else agreed in principle), but they cannot seem to get beyond arguing over the agenda for the meeting, and so it has sat for months. Hence the popular frustration. It's not incipient dictatorship (a dictator who can't even manage to get his own deputy Mutlaq fired? You think Saddam had that problem?), but it is hardly a paragon of good governance.
But another damn election to settle the matter? How is that going to happen? Let me inform you of the results from now. Some number will vote for Maliki, accusing Mutlaq and Hashimi of treason, and insist the solution is to give him greater control. Some almost equal number will vote for Hashimi and Mutlaq supporters, and demand more accountability from Baghdad vis a vis the Sunni population in particular. Some more hardline Shi'a will vote for the Sadrists, who won't find either side appealing and the Kurds will have their representatives running around mediating. Know what that looks like? The current parliament.
I think Iraqis have managed to dupe themselves into thinking we are less divided than we are. You take your average Baghdad bread seller, he figures he sells to Sunnis, he sells to Shi'a, a few Kurds buy from him too, and so he has no difficulties with these guys. They cannot manage to get along in the government, he thinks, because they're just being unreasonable. We'll replace them, bring in some more reasonable people, and they'll do what we want, which is come together and solve these problems that have left everyone divided. (Come to think of it, maybe Iraqis aren't all that different than Americans in this regard).
Except we tried that, it doesn't work. The reason the bread seller gets along with the different Iraqis is because he doesn't talk politics with them, and has no control over those issues of dispute. If he was forced to sit down with someone of the opposite group and discuss, say, the Hashimi matter, they'd be just as divided as the people in the legislature. Which is why a new election won't change a thing, it'll just bring back the same divisions, perhaps with new personalities occupying the roles, but the same divisions, all over again. There's no new result from doing it over again, because the problem isn't the representatives, it's a problem in the nature of the society they represent, and the deep divisions that society has respecting the state they envision Iraq being.
HAH
Comments