Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Does Allawi's "win" Really Matter?

Rate this topic


MajiC

Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Allawi Wins Iraq’s Election, But Does It Matter?

Saturday, March 27, 2010

Iraq’s Election Commission has finally released the seat distribution in the new parliament. Former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi came out in first place with 91 seats, followed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s State of Law with 89 seats. The National Alliance of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC) and the Sadrists got 70 seats, and the Kurdish Alliance of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) received 43, Those four were the major lists, which will be behind any new government. After them were the minor parties, including the Kurdish opposition groups, the Change List with 8 seats, the Kurdistan Islamic Union with 4 seats, and the Kurdistan Islamic Group with 2 seats. The Accordance Front finished with only 6 seats, after being a major player in 2005, plus Interior Minister Jawad Bolani’s Unity of Iraq list got 4 seats. There were five seats set aside for Christians in Baghdad, Dohuk, Irbil, Ninewa, and Tamim. Three went to the Rafidain List, while the other two went to the Council of the Kildani People. The winning parties for the three other minority seats have not been released yet.

Allawi proved to be a much better national candidate then Maliki. In the four provinces with mainly Sunni Arab voters, Anbar, Diyala, Ninewa, and Salahaddin, he received 47 of 76 seats, 61% of the total. While Allawi is a Shiite, he ran on a nationalist, secular agenda, and most of his list were Sunnis. In the mixed provinces of Baghdad he got 24 of 68 seats, 35%, almost matching Maliki, while in Tamim he had a surprising tie with the Kurdish Alliance, gaining 6 of 12 seats there. In the Shiite south, Allawi’s list was able to garner 17 of 199 seats, for 14%. Allawi obviously did better in central and northern Iraq than the south, but that was a better showing than Maliki nationally. He only got 1 of 76 seats in Sunni areas, with one seat in Diyala. In Baghdad he bettered Allawi by only two seats, with 26. Southern Shiites were his main base where he got 60 of 119 seats. Maliki might not have done as well in Sunni areas because of his backing of the Accountability and Justice Commission’s banning of candidates before the election for alleged Baathist ties, which angered many Sunnis.

In the end, none of that may matter. The new parliament will next select a speaker and president, and then the latter will ask the leader of the largest list to try to form a new government. The Federal Supreme Court however, just ruled that parties can continue to form alliances until a president is named. That means Maliki could put together a new coalition with his State of Law that surpasses the National Movement’s 91, and then he would have the first shot at forming a government, despite Allawi finishing ahead of him in the vote.

Even before this latest development Allawi was looking at a difficult time cobbling together a ruling coalition. Moqtada al-Sadr for example, has come out against Maliki returning to power, which means he could be open to working with Allawi. The Sadrists also received around 40 seats out of the National Alliance’s 70, making them a powerful bloc equal to the Kurdish Alliance. The Sadr Trend has also collaborated with Allawi’s Iraqi National List in parliament. However, Shiite parties and leaders in the south have been portraying Allawi as being a Baathist sympathizer that will allow former regime elements back into power, which would make it hard for Sadr’s rank and file agreeing to an alliance. Allawi faces another problem if he wanted to talk to the Kurds. They are asking for guarantees on Article 140 that lays out how the disputed territories like Kirkuk will be annexed. Members of Allawi’s List such as parliamentarian Osama al-Najafi have said they will oppose any compromises on the disputed areas. Not only that, but members of the Kurdish Alliance have said that Najafi and others in Allawi’s list are Baathists and anti-Kurdish. That hasn’t stopped Allawi from traveling to Kurdistan two times to meet with Kurdistan President Massoud Barzani and Iraqi President Jalal Talabani since the March 7 election. Last, Maliki and Allawi both want to be prime minister. That personal rivalry excludes the two from joining forces at this time. At 91 seats, the National Movement needs 72 to reach the 163 necessary for a government. It would be impossible for Allawi to get to that mark without bringing in one to two of the three major lists mentioned above.

Maliki on the other hand, seems to have an advantage in winning over at least a few parties to his side. First, despite a series of clashes with the Prime Minister in 2008 and 2009, the Kurdish Alliance has said that they want to stay in power with State of Law. Second, Maliki’s Dawa and the Supreme Council have begun talking about a merger. State of Law, the Kurdish Alliance, and the other members of the National Alliance besides the Sadrists would account for 162 seats. Maliki would only have to bring in one more minor party such as the Accordance Front or Unity of Iraq to gain a majority in parliament, and to give some Sunnis representation within his government. That would be a major weakness in his government however, since Sunnis overwhelmingly came out for Allawi.

For Maliki, the real issue is whether he can return to power. There are increasing rumors that parties will join with his State of Law, but only if he is not named as prime minister. That may be the reason why the Sadrists have come out against a second term for Maliki. They still want the Shiite parties to come together, just not with Maliki as their leader. Two members of the National Alliance separately told reporters that all the parties in the list would join with the State of Law, even the Sadrists, but only if Maliki stepped down. Ironically, that may be the price for the State of Law to maintain its leading position within the government, which is to sacrifice Maliki since he has simply made too many enemies in his last few years in office.

The next several weeks and months will be taken up by this arduous process of putting together a new ruling coalition. Both Allawi and Maliki have warts on them that will make it hard for them to find friends. The Prime Minister has the upper hand however right now. The reason why might have been best summed up by a member of the KDP who said that they had to choose better the bad, Maliki, and the worse, Allawi. Given that dilemma, the Prime Minister appears to be the lesser of two evils. Since Maliki needs them more than they need him however, their price may be him not remaining in power.

Seats In Parliament By Party

National Movement 91 seats, 28%

State of Law 89 seats, 27%

National Alliance 70 seats, 21%

Kurdish Alliance 43 seats, 13%

Change List 8 seats, 2%

Accordance Front 6 seats, 1%

Unity of Iraq 4 seats, 1%

Kurdistan Islamic Union 4 seats, 1%

Rafidain List 3 seats (Christian quota), 0.9%

Kurdistan Islamic Group 2 seats, 0.6%

Council of the Kildani People 2 seats (Christian quota), 0.6%

3 Minority seats yet to be announced

325 Total

Allawi vs. Maliki By Provinces and Constituencies

Allawi

Sunni Areas:

Anbar 11 of 14

Diyala 8 of 19

Ninewa 20 of 31

Salahaddin 8 of 12

Total: 47 of 76, 61%

Mixed Areas:

Baghdad 24 of 68, 35%

Tamim 6 of 12 seats, 50%

Shiite Areas:

Babil 8 of 16

Basra 3 of 24

Dhi Qar 1 of 18

Karbala 1 of 10

Qadisiyah 2 of 11

Wasit 2 of 11 seats

Total: 17 of 119, 14%

Maliki

Sunni Areas:

Diyala 1 of 19

Total: 1 of 76, 1%

Mixed Areas:

Baghdad 26 of 68, 38%

Shiite Areas:

Babil 8 of 16

Basra 14 of 24

Dhi Qar 8 of 18

Karbala 6 of 10

Muthanna 4 of 7

Maysan 4 of 10

Najaf 7 of 12

Qadisiyah 4 of 11

Wasit 5 of 11 seats

Total: 60 of 119, 50%

Seats In Parliament By Province

Anbar: 14 seats

National Movement 11 seats

Accordance Front 2 seats

Unity of Iraq 1 seat

Babil: 16 seats

State of Law 8 seats

National Alliance 5 seats

National Movement 3 seats

Baghdad: 68 seats + 1 Christian seat + 1 Sabean seat

State of Law 26 seats

National Movement 24 seats

National Alliance 17 seats

Accordance Front 1 seat

Basra: 24 seats

State of Law 14 seats

National Alliance 7 seats

National Movement 3 seats

Dohuk: 10 seats + 1 Christian seat

Kurdish Alliance 9 seats

Kurdistan Islamic Party 1 seat

Dhi Qar: 18 seats

National Alliance 9 seats

State of Law 8 seats

National Movement 1 seat

Diyala: 19 seats

National Movement 8 seats

National Alliance 3 seats

State of Law 1 seat

Kurdish Alliance 1 seat

Irbil: 14 seats + 1 Christian seat

Kurdish Alliance 10 seats

Change List 2 seats

Kurdistan Islamic Group 1 seat

Kurdistan Islamic Party 1 seat

Karbala: 10 seats

State of Law 6 seats

National Alliance 3 seats

National Movement 1 seat

Muthanna: 7 seats

State of Law 4 seats

National Alliance 3 seats

Maysan: 10 seats

National Alliance 6 seats

State of Law 4 seats

Najaf: 12 seats

State of Law 7 seats

National Alliance 5 seats

Ninewa: 31 seats + 1 Christian seat + 1 Yazidi seat + 1 Shabak seat

National Movement 20 seats

Kurdish Alliance 8 seats

National Alliance 1 seat

Accordance Front 1 seat

Unity of Iraq 1 seat

Qadisiyah: 11 seats

National Alliance 5 seats

State of Law 4 seats

National Movement 2 seats

Salahaddin: 12 seats

National Movement 8 seats

Accordance Front 2 seats

Unity of Iraq 2 seats

Tamim: 12 seats + 1 Christian seat

National Movement 6 seats

Kurdish Alliance 6 seats

Wasit: 11 seats

State of Law 5 seats

National Alliance 4 seats

National Movement 2 seats

Compensatory Seats: 7 seats

National Movement 2 seats

State of Law 2 seats

National Alliance 2 seats

Kurdish Alliance 1 seat

http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2010/03/allawi-wins-iraqs-election-but-does-it.html

Edited by MajiC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Does it shows that Shias in Iraq are absolutely not united as compared to Sunnies?

Many of Shias went for Allawi. Many of them divided between Hakim and Maliki.

As compared to Shias, the Sunni votes went only and only to Allawi.

May be division of Shia vote between Hakim and Maliki is good. This way at least there is one Shia Party which could get Sunni Votes too, while if Maliki is joined by Saddrists, then NO Sunni is going to vote for such Shia Coalition.

Also, how true is it that Allawi is supported by Wahabi Saudies and other Sunni Gulf States?

Edited by Jibrael
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators

Also, how true is it that Allawi is supported by Wahabi Saudies and other Sunni Gulf States?

Well before the election Allawi went on a tour of Sunni Arab states - no doubt in order to sell himself as someone who they could do business with. He was also on record as complaining about Iranian interference in Iraqi affairs. In the previous election he had had explicit support from the Americans.

No doubt there are Shias who think that such a leader, who has the confidence of Sunni Arabs can provide them with more security. As an outsider my view is that Saddam was a Sunni Arab, who for many years had the confidence of Sunni Arabs in neighbouring countries. And I don't recall him doing much for the Shia.

So trying to please these people will not get the Shia very far IMHO.

I think the Shia will suffer with his election. He calls himself a secular Shia and I think his government will reflect that kind of identity e.g. there will be some superficial support for Shi'ism in Iraq, but the goal of the government will be to reduce the role of religion in public life.

In this way he will seek to undermine Shi'ism in a way that Saddam never could. Saddam's tool was the prison, his will be the shopping mall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think people understand the gravity of the situation.

This election was rigged. By the americans, the UN (american puppet), british and ofcourse the saudis.

If Allawi was to be PM then I would give him a year...maybe 2...then we'll see him being assasinated by the other baathis. They'll blame it on Iran and the shia, there will probably be some sort of civil conflict. The baath will conduct a coup and return to power. This is one scenario a lot of people are talking about now. There will be A LOT of assasiantions. Even right now, 2 sunni leaders have been assasianted in Baghdad and Qaim.

IF that was to happen, the first person to be executed would be sistani and the maraji3, then the shia politcal leaders, hakim would most likely be tortured to death, which leaves sadr and his militia...it only needs a bit of money to bribe half of that miltia (since half of them were former baath), the other half would be anihialated within a month.

Obama and the democrats would not want to get involved in an ''internal iraqi affair''

This is much more serious then people think.

The iranians would sit there laughing and poking fun at the arabs like they usually do.

The saudis and the salafi scum would be laughing there asses off.

I can see only darkness and terror for Iraq. There is only one small hope that we have left....and thats if the shia parties unite NOW. Then MAYBE..just MAYBE it will be ok.

Edited by IraqLives1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Allawi Wins Iraq’s Election, But Does It Matter?

In the end, none of that may matter. The new parliament will next select a speaker and president, and then the latter will ask the leader of the largest list to try to form a new government. The Federal Supreme Court however, just ruled that parties can continue to form alliances until a president is named. That means Maliki could put together a new coalition with his State of Law that surpasses the National Movement’s 91, and then he would have the first shot at forming a government, despite Allawi finishing ahead of him in the vote.

Even before this latest development Allawi was looking at a difficult time cobbling together a ruling coalition. Moqtada al-Sadr for example, has come out against Maliki returning to power, which means he could be open to working with Allawi. The Sadrists also received around 40 seats out of the National Alliance’s 70, making them a powerful bloc equal to the Kurdish Alliance. The Sadr Trend has also collaborated with Allawi’s Iraqi National List in parliament. However, Shiite parties and leaders in the south have been portraying Allawi as being a Baathist sympathizer that will allow former regime elements back into power, which would make it hard for Sadr’s rank and file agreeing to an alliance. Allawi faces another problem if he wanted to talk to the Kurds. They are asking for guarantees on Article 140 that lays out how the disputed territories like Kirkuk will be annexed. Members of Allawi’s List such as parliamentarian Osama al-Najafi have said they will oppose any compromises on the disputed areas. Not only that, but members of the Kurdish Alliance have said that Najafi and others in Allawi’s list are Baathists and anti-Kurdish. That hasn’t stopped Allawi from traveling to Kurdistan two times to meet with Kurdistan President Massoud Barzani and Iraqi President Jalal Talabani since the March 7 election. Last, Maliki and Allawi both want to be prime minister. That personal rivalry excludes the two from joining forces at this time. At 91 seats, the National Movement needs 72 to reach the 163 necessary for a government. It would be impossible for Allawi to get to that mark without bringing in one to two of the three major lists mentioned above.

Maliki on the other hand, seems to have an advantage in winning over at least a few parties to his side. First, despite a series of clashes with the Prime Minister in 2008 and 2009, the Kurdish Alliance has said that they want to stay in power with State of Law. Second, Maliki’s Dawa and the Supreme Council have begun talking about a merger. State of Law, the Kurdish Alliance, and the other members of the National Alliance besides the Sadrists would account for 162 seats. Maliki would only have to bring in one more minor party such as the Accordance Front or Unity of Iraq to gain a majority in parliament, and to give some Sunnis representation within his government. That would be a major weakness in his government however, since Sunnis overwhelmingly came out for Allawi.

This is a good part. So Allawi won but he has 30 days to form a government. If he fails its up to State of Law. And according to this article we can give a first shot to form a government if we form a bigger coalition.

The only point in the article I dony agree with is Maliki's fear of not returning to power. I think the fear lies whether he Baathis come back and we lose power.

So no Iraqlives, Iraq is not lost and actually I think we can return to power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

This is a good part. So Allawi won but he has 30 days to form a government. If he fails its up to State of Law. And according to this article we can give a first shot to form a government if we form a bigger coalition.

The only point in the article I dony agree with is Maliki's fear of not returning to power. I think the fear lies whether he Baathis come back and we lose power.

So no Iraqlives, Iraq is not lost and actually I think we can return to power.

Well said Sis. Good article as well I must say.

There has been a lot of foulplay in this election, all an inside job, some superior members of the IHEC have also refused the results, labelling them corrupt and false. It was stated that the majority of the IHEC employees were employed by Allawi; that's just an insight of how the elections were rigged really.

Nevertheless there is still hope, and as long as it remains and as long as the Iraqi National Allegiance are willing to merge with the State of Law then we'll be in a safe margin to not let the Baath Party take over again.

Too bad for Allawi's supporters who were out partying all friday night in celebration of their alleged victory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a good part. So Allawi won but he has 30 days to form a government. If he fails its up to State of Law. And according to this article we can give a first shot to form a government if we form a bigger coalition.

The only point in the article I dony agree with is Maliki's fear of not returning to power. I think the fear lies whether he Baathis come back and we lose power.

So no Iraqlives, Iraq is not lost and actually I think we can return to power.

Insha'Allah

I hope your right Iraqiah. One thing we should ALL be worried about is the saudis and the americans.

President Harry Truman signed a special agreement with abdul aziz of saudi arabia. The agreement was that Saudi Arabia would consistently supply america with oil and gas and in return the americans would protect the saud family and the monarchy. Anything the saudi monarch says, the americans would do it...and anything the americans says, the saudis would do it.

Why do you think the americans didnt support the iraqis in the 1991 revolts? Because the saudis told them not to.

It is very easy for the americans to change the political situation in Iraq, within an instant. They rigged the elections, they have there army in Iraq, and they are supporting the baath again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Well said Sis. Good article as well I must say.

There has been a lot of foulplay in this election, all an inside job, some superior members of the IHEC have also refused the results, labelling them corrupt and false. It was stated that the majority of the IHEC employees were employed by Allawi; that's just an insight of how the elections were rigged really.

Nevertheless there is still hope, and as long as it remains and as long as the Iraqi National Allegiance are willing to merge with the State of Law then we'll be in a safe margin to not let the Baath Party take over again.

Too bad for Allawi's supporters who were out partying all friday night in celebration of their alleged victory.

Yeah I heard about the superior members who refused the results. Al-Iraqiya channel stated yesterday that Hamdiya al Hussaini and some other man who refused the results would appear infront of court if needed.

And even if all that wouldnt happen, as long as INA doesnt allie with Allawi we are save.

Insha'Allah

I hope your right Iraqiah. One thing we should ALL be worried about is the saudis and the americans.

President Harry Truman signed a special agreement with abdul aziz of saudi arabia. The agreement was that Saudi Arabia would consistently supply america with oil and gas and in return the americans would protect the saud family and the monarchy. Anything the saudi monarch says, the americans would do it...and anything the americans says, the saudis would do it.

Why do you think the americans didnt support the iraqis in the 1991 revolts? Because the saudis told them not to.

It is very easy for the americans to change the political situation in Iraq, within an instant. They rigged the elections, they have there army in Iraq, and they are supporting the baath again.

No one is denying what KSA and USA are doing but the point is that as long as INA and the Kurds dont allie with Allawi nothing can happen. He has 30 days to form a government if he fails than bye bye Allawi. So dont worry as long as no one wants to join his coalition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

^ That's true, the real worry is if the INA join with Allawi.

Yes Allawi may have better connections with the Wahabbi states surrounding Iraq (for known reasons), but Al-Maliki has worked so hard these past four years, accomplishing security, jobs, building projects and so on, it will be disappointing to see Allawi take credit for whetever will come next. With time gone by people will forget to thank the original government and vote Allawi again.

I just hope they see the light now before its too late.

Edited by thats me titch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

^ That's true, the real worry is if the INA join with Allawi.

Yes Allawi may have better connections with the Wahabbi states surrounding Iraq (for known reasons), but Al-Maliki has worked so hard these past four years, accomplishing security, jobs, building projects and so on, it will be disappointing to see Allawi take credit for whetever will come next. With time gone by people will forget to thank the original government and vote Allawi again.

I just hope they see the light now before its too late.

And thats exactly whats killing me. Iraq is improving so much now security improved that Allawi will take all credit.

Bas nshoof, Allah Kareem!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I think the results of these elections mean the end of Maliki as the PM. The only way the Sadr bloc is going to accept agreeing to a PM from the state of law is if Maliki steps down and makes way for someone different from his party in the same way that Ibrahim Jafri stepped down and made way for Maliki. Without Sadr it is very tough to form a majority, though not impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

(salam)

Will the Kurd go for Allawi or Maliki? They (the Kurds) will probably decide this election.

Salaam,

Your over-estimating them, they got a say but they wont decide it. If al hakim goes with maliki then all maliki needs is 4 kurd seats. That not including the sadris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

(salam)

You are right. But what are the chance of National Alliances going with Al Maliki? I think people are forgetting that this election doesn't have 2 winners but 3 :unsure:

I still think this election is favoring Maliki (even though he is behind by 2 seats).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

This is a good part. So Allawi won but he has 30 days to form a government. If he fails its up to State of Law. And according to this article we can give a first shot to form a government if we form a bigger coalition.

The only point in the article I dony agree with is Maliki's fear of not returning to power. I think the fear lies whether he Baathis come back and we lose power.

So no Iraqlives, Iraq is not lost and actually I think we can return to power.

As the title suggests, ultimately it may not matter that Allawi rigged the election at the behest of his western-arab sponsors. There are several ways out of this dilemma:

1) The result is technically not final; the High Court has 2 weeks to certify results and until Monday to receive complaints. Maliki's challenge may get a favourable decision from the Courts for a manual vote recount. There is increasing pressure from all major parties for this and evidence to accompany it. A vote recount is likely to falsify the current result in favour of Maliki.

2) Assuming there is no vote recount, Allawi still faces an uphill struggle to form a majority. He may not find a partner among the other two major coalitions owing to fundamental differences and allegations. The alternative is attracting the Kurds and all the small parties and independents. Keeping such a coalition intact will prove almost impossible - such a government will not survive.

3) Allawi has 30 days following the seating of parliament and the instruction of the President to form a government. Failing this the opportunity to form a government is given to the runner up. If the two Shi'a coalitions and the Kurds wait it out this process will be virtually stalled and they will themselves be able to form the government.

4) Maliki made a request to the High Court last week for the legal clarification of the definition of a constitutional clause regarding the formaton of government. The Court's definition was in his favour and ruled that coalition forming is still possible and that the largest coalition post-election is given the first opportunity to form the government. It is not necessarily the coalition with the largest number of seats at the announcement of results. This means that if the Shi'a parties unite they will form the largest coalition and hence form the government.

As it appears, there may be ways out of this Ba'athist coup and the Shi'a may be forgiven for their disunity - this was a lesson to be learnt. However, just as Allawi is highly unlikely to become PM nor is Maliki as concessions will need to be made however things pan out. Obviousely, Allawi will bear his grudge should he be denied power and this is likely to cause more Ba'athi-Wahhabi instigated violence in Iraq. In my opinion, it's more prudent to push for option (1) and expose Allawi's fraud while only resorting to the other options should that fail. Perhaps they realise this.

apba

(salam)

You are right. But what are the chance of National Alliances going with Al Maliki? I think people are forgetting that this election doesn't have 2 winners but 3 :unsure:

I still think this election is favoring Maliki (even though he is behind by 2 seats).

It's likely the State of Law will have to drop Maliki for a compromise candidate as a condition for partnering with NIA, this is at the behest of Sadr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I dont think people understand the gravity of the situation.

This election was rigged. By the americans, the UN (american puppet), british and ofcourse the saudis.

If Allawi was to be PM then I would give him a year...maybe 2...then we'll see him being assasinated by the other baathis. They'll blame it on Iran and the shia, there will probably be some sort of civil conflict. The baath will conduct a coup and return to power. This is one scenario a lot of people are talking about now. There will be A LOT of assasiantions. Even right now, 2 sunni leaders have been assasianted in Baghdad and Qaim.

IF that was to happen, the first person to be executed would be sistani and the maraji3, then the shia politcal leaders, hakim would most likely be tortured to death, which leaves sadr and his militia...it only needs a bit of money to bribe half of that miltia (since half of them were former baath), the other half would be anihialated within a month.

Obama and the democrats would not want to get involved in an ''internal iraqi affair''

This is much more serious then people think.

The iranians would sit there laughing and poking fun at the arabs like they usually do.

The saudis and the salafi scum would be laughing there asses off.

I can see only darkness and terror for Iraq. There is only one small hope that we have left....and thats if the shia parties unite NOW. Then MAYBE..just MAYBE it will be ok.

LOL don't be scared, none of these going to happen.

If Hakim/Sadrist join Allawi, they'll share power... And who says that Allawi might include all Baathists into the government? He has no choice but to give most key positions to Shias and then some to Kurds and some to Sunni Arabs...out of those Sunni Arabs maybe few could be ex-Baathists who won some votes for him.

The era of Saddam is gone... You still think you are being controlled like 20 years ago. Twenty years ago Shias and Shia countries were in a very weak position...Only Iran was emerging..Today is very different.. with any Shia country or Shia group if any regional or international country want to deal or confront, they must think 100 times before making any stupid move.

Allawi is as secular as Maliki.. The only reason he reached to Sunnis and started to show anti-Iranian sentiment and pro-Arabism nationalism is because he knew that he could not get more than 20 seats just like the last election..that was all for the election campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Zahratul_Islam

I have not really investigated the allegations of rigging. What proof is there? Iraqiah_Shia might be able to shed some light on this because she has been following the election quite closely.

Maliki and the shias did not play their cards right in this election, they may have been manipulated, etc- but this doesn't mean that the election was rigged. It isn't outside the bounds of reason that we had a fair, free election in Iraq and Maliki simply lost. Just politics.

There is still hope.

I think the Shia will suffer with his election. He calls himself a secular Shia and I think his government will reflect that kind of identity e.g. there will be some superficial support for Shi'ism in Iraq, but the goal of the government will be to reduce the role of religion in public life.

That is all you need from a government. The goal of a secular government is to allow the people to worship freely (the Sunnis, Christians, etc). The social state of the Iraqi people is deeply rooted in their religious beliefs and a secular government won't change this. It will just keep a certain number from committing acts of violence as a result of feeling disenfranchised and irrelevant in their own country.

Shia of Iraq have carried their religious traditions around for centuries and they will continue to pass them on even if their government advocates freedom of religion (not freedom from religion). We have a substantial portion of the population that is not Shia and so theocracies that change with the election cycle are not exactly plausible or productive.

Edited by Zahratul_Islam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

(salam)

They need 163 seats to form the new Iraqi government.

GR2010032705999.gif

What is the breakdown within the INA (Hakim, Sadrist, Chalabi) ?

38 out of 70 seats in the INA are won by Sadrist. No idea on the exact breakdown of the seats won by others.

It's likely the State of Law will have to drop Maliki for a compromise candidate as a condition for partnering with NIA, this is at the behest of Sadr.

Is this likely? Even though Maliki’s party won 89 seats .. :unsure:

I hope the State of Law and National Alliance are negotiating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Does it shows that Shias in Iraq are absolutely not united as compared to Sunnies?

May be division of Shia vote between Hakim and Maliki is good.

(salam)

Sunnis of Iraq do not have many choices. With limited choices, they mostly went for Allawi and/or some independent candidates.

The Shias of Iraq had plenty of choices. Their vote seems to be evenly distributed between the State of Law and INA.

I don’t know why you guys think is bad. Right now, there is really a great chance for the State of Law and NIA to form the next government.

They should put away their differences and work together because this election is really important for Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

There are 65% Shias in Iraq. But their 2 Parties have got only 48% Seats in the Elections.

Sunnies seem to be united under Allawi.

Shias of Iraq must be very very careful as all other Arab Gulf States will interfere in their internal affairs by supporting the Bathist against any Shia Government. Good thing is this that Kurds are also mostly on the side of Shia as compared to Sunni Arab States. I know Kurds are also not favourable to Shias, but if they have to choose between Shias and Sunni Arabs, then their vote goes for Shias.

How are the relations between Iraqi Kurds and Iran?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

And thats exactly whats killing me. Iraq is improving so much now security improved that Allawi will take all credit.

Bas nshoof, Allah Kareem!

I overheard my dad and uncles talking about this the other day. Their theory is: Huma el ba3ath responsible for the security problems (along with al-qaeda of course) so when allawi takes control, there no longer will be any security problems, hence allawi will take credit for solving the problem when his ba3ath party are the problem themselves!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

That is all you need from a government. The goal of a secular government is to allow the people to worship freely (the Sunnis, Christians, etc). The social state of the Iraqi people is deeply rooted in their religious beliefs and a secular government won't change this. It will just keep a certain number from committing acts of violence as a result of feeling disenfranchised and irrelevant in their own country.

Shia of Iraq have carried their religious traditions around for centuries and they will continue to pass them on even if their government advocates freedom of religion (not freedom from religion). We have a substantial portion of the population that is not Shia and so theocracies that change with the election cycle are not exactly plausible or productive.

I have a few problems with what you have said in this post, and I will list them right now. I'm sorry if it is jumbled.

1) Religious government -- in a Shia-majority country -- does not deny people the right to worship freely. It merely makes the political element of Shiism the official state ideology. Christians shouldn't mind that anyway, because their religion is apolitical. Ours is not.

2) Certain groups within any country will always be dissatisfied. Sunnis, no matter how small in number, will always cry that they are being oppressed (see: the Sunnis of the IRI). The Shia of Iraq are the majority, and they have a right to rule that country.

3) France was a religious country in the 18th Century. They are not a religious country today. What can this be, if not the long-term effect of secularism? Of course, in the short term, Iraqi Shias will remain religious regardless of the government. In fact, in the short term, a non-religious government may do a better job of attracting people toward the faith. But among the long term effects of secularism are the impotence of religion. Present-day Europe is testament to this.

Regarding #1 and #2, I think it is important to note that the religious government of the IRI has done much more to protect the rights of religious and ethnic minorities than the irreligious governments which have ruled various other countries in the Middle East in the 20th Century. For example, Saddam -- a secularist -- trampled the rights of Shias and Kurds. Now I know you will claim that this is a bad example, but it's actually a very typical example. This is a common theme in our part of the world. I can list a bunch of leaders who were no different; Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, Mohammad Reza Shah of Iran, Kemal of Turkey. Even more "civilized" examples like Benito Juarez in Mexico (who ruthless violated the rights of the Indians). Secularism in the East manifests itself in a strange combination of elitist nationalism and European race theories. But more on this later, because I want to address the third point.

The third point is a more general point, because it applies both to the countries from which secularism originated as well as the countries in our part of the world which are either resisting secularism or seeking to adopt it. As a Muslim (and a politically-minded Muslim), I would much prefer an atheistic, communistic government -- that violently suppresses religion -- than a secular, liberal government. Why? The secular, liberal government does not destroy religion, but it lays the foundation to eventually make religion irrelevant (as it has done in Europe). On the other hand, the communist government actively seeks to destroy religion, and in the process it preserves religion in its purest form: the "religion of revolution" as Shariati called it. We Muslims generally agree that Islam was in its purest form when it was fighting for its survival. This is an elementary concept that can be applied to today's world, as well. Communism forces religion to defend itself, whereas liberalism neuters religion to the point of it losing all of its significance.

Now I am going to say something which I know you do not want to hear, but I think it should be said anyway. The IRI has presented quite a good model for the economic and social development of the countries of the "East," in particular Iraq (with which we have the most common identity). I won't cite any of the statistics because we have already been over these and have been bored by them. It suffices to say that, in a matter of 20 years, the IRI has risen out of the ashes of colonialism and war a country with a tremendous industrial output, an advanced civil society, and an increasing political relevance in the international game. As my Libyan friend once said: "We celebrate Nasser, we celebrate Assad, we even celebrate Ghadafi. But put together, none of them accomplished anything near what Iran has accomplished in the past 30 years." Keep in mind that my Libyan friend, although he has become disillusioned with Sunnism, is far from being an Iranophile. He has very blatant pan-Arab and Marxist leanings. So I think it is fair to say that there is no "pro-Iranian" bias that clouds his judgment and invalidates the above statement.

Another example I like to cite is Jalal Al-e Ahmad. Al-e Ahmad was a man who lost his faith and never fully reconciled it (although the IRI's official stance is that he was in the process of coming back to Islam, and would have done so had it not been for his untimely death). Even he admitted that Islam was the only means for Iran (and, by extension, all other Muslim countries) to resist gharbzadegi. He, someone who had abandoned his faith, criticized the ulama for not being politically active enough (!) and for drowning themselves (and the people) in minutiae. Surely we should understand the significance of those words, coming from such a person. Reasonable people eventually reach this conclusion, because it is evident in our daily observation of global political events.

Now I want to clarify something else, because I have already made the distinction between the secular liberalism that originated in the West and the secular liberalism that we Easterners have become so enamored with and seek to adopt. Even the liberalism of the West took many years of reform for it to become what it is today. In the beginning it was very primitive and hardly what modern people would call "progressive." It was only in 1882 that married women in Britain were given the right to have their own property (rights which Islam clearly outlined 1400 years ago). It was only in 1920 that women in the United States were given the right to vote (rights which Islam outlined, albeit not as clearly [due to the fact that voting was not as mechanized and systematic of a process as it is today], 1400 years ago). The most important ideologues of liberalism -- Rousseau, Jefferson, Locke, and others -- were elitists, racists, misogynists and a million other "ists." If we are to adopt liberalism, at this stage, we will be adopting that primitive liberalism of 200-300 years ago, not the liberalism of today (although, I would even argue against us adopting today's, "good" liberalism for various reasons).

I can see that I have drifted off topic so I will leave it at that.

Ya Ali

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

There are 65% Shias in Iraq. But their 2 Parties have got only 48% Seats in the Elections.

In case your forgot, Allawi is a Shia too and as it is said around 15% of Allawi's seats come from the Shias.

Besides, turnout in Shia provinces were much lower than Sunni and Kurdish provinces.

And don't forget all those crazy-minded independent Shia candidates who just wasted the votes and won nothing.

In regards to Shia Kruds and Shia Turkmen, I guess historically they vote ethnic-wise........

This situation of divisions and sub-divisions may stay for years and that may cause Iraq to remain weak..unless some bright minded and encouraging young scholars promote awakenings across Shia communities amongst the youths in the country to unite them behind a common goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Is this likely? Even though Maliki’s party won 89 seats .. :unsure:

I hope the State of Law and National Alliance are negotiating.

Before negotiations started, as recently as yesturday, Maliki was a red-line for the Sadrists in any cooperation with the State of Law. But according to a recent report in Al-Hayat, Sadr may have dropped this condition now after recent negotiations. So it's possible Maliki will retrun as PM, even though ISCI may propose their own candidate. In the end, it's quite likely the government will look the same as it before. Especially considering that Allawi may lose a few seats now that some more Ba'athist candidates could be rooted out from his list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

(salam)

Allawi has not won the election. He is not even close to winning this election.

The first party to get 163 votes will be the victorious party. I just don't think Allawi will be able to convince the NIA or the Kurds to form the new government.

I am deeply disturbed that a party with known connection to ex-bathist is in a position to decide Iraq’s future. God No! I hope the Shias and the Kurds will unite to ensure that this doesn't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

^ That's good news. But wasn't the news that even though these Baathis leave that Allawi will replace them with other candidates? Or has that been changed? Where would those seats go if thats the case?

As far as I've understand their share of the votes would be invalidated and the elections commission would allocate those seats based on new electoral tallies. Maliki will benefit most from this.

A bit of a background on this: As you know, 500 candidates were initially banned by The Justice and Accountability Commission (JAC) and of the replacement candidates 52 were also blacklisted. At the time the electoral commission (IHEC) said the decision was too late and allowed them to run and that the issue should be looked at after the elections. This is even while one of the candidates, who later recieved votes, was serving jail time over terrorism charges. Now that the elections are over, the JAC has raised the matter, as per the IHEC's prior advice, and these allegations are obviousely seen in a negative light by others considering their being raised after the elections. In fact, some members of Allawi's list have already alluded to civil war should they lose seats on these grounds. One can't help but to wonder if the IHEC is there to make trouble at the behest of the US and their Arab allies, as is believed by many officials. Afterall, it was the IHEC, following Joe Biden's visit, that initially rejected a decision by the vetting commission to ban candidates with strong ba'athist ties and sentiments. No surprisingly the US and it's lackey the UN have fully endorsed the elections as being free and fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
The secular, liberal government does not destroy religion, but it lays the foundation to eventually make religion irrelevant (as it has done in Europe).

A government cannot make religion irrelevant. Bad religious leadership makes religion (seem) irrelevant, and followers take their cue from this and find religion irrelevant. To attribute the decline in overt religiosity of the developed world over the past 200 years predominantly to secular government is to show a willing ignorance of the other major tectonic changes that have come about in that time, namely the rapid advance of science and technology, urbanization, and improvements in comfort and standard of living through technology. The defining collision is between religion

(or, rather, understanding of religion) and modernity, not between religion and secularism.

Edited by kadhim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

salam.gif

Sunnis of Iraq do not have many choices. With limited choices, they mostly went for Allawi and/or some independent candidates.

The Shias of Iraq had plenty of choices. Their vote seems to be evenly distributed between the State of Law and INA.

I don't know why you guys think is bad. Right now, there is really a great chance for the State of Law and NIA to form the next government.

They should put away their differences and work together because this election is really important for Iraq.

Yes you are right and I gree with you , but we should know that money played a big role in this election for Allawi . No problem .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

(salam)

So, technically Allawi can't become a President or Prime Minister? :unsure:

"Article 77 says the Iraqi president and prime minister must have Iraqi parents, but Allawi's mother is Lebanese," he added

Do we have any more updates about the recent Iraqi election?

The party of Muqtada al-Sadr in the Iraqi parliament, with 39 seats, intends to hold a referendum on which prime ministerial candidate to support on this Friday and Saturday, according to al-Hayat writing in Arabic.

Al-Hayat also reports that the Iraqiya list of Iyad Allawi is miffed that it was not invited to Iran this past weekend. He offered to go to Iran to work for a coalition, he said. Allawi expressed a willingness to go to Tehran if that is where the government is being formed. Both al-Maliki and Allawi are now showing flexibility and the willingness for the first time to form a government of national unity.

?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...