Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
FriendsofAhlulbayt

Maliki Defies Sistani As His Party Abandons Him

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

65 of Maliki’s MPs rebel against him

Nouri al-Maliki, outgoing Prime Minister, will claim that his party betrayed him. His party will claim that they are working for the national interest, and obeying Ayatullah Ali al-Sistani. 65 out of 92 MPs of the Maliki-led State of Law Coalition (SoL) left the SoL and backed Haider al-Abadi as PM. 

The 65 were joined by 34 MPs from the Ahrar bloc (party of Muqtada al-Sadr) and 29 of Citizen bloc (party of Ammar al-Hakim) to take the total to 128 MPs. The President, Fuad Masum, defined them as the largest bloc and asked them to form a Government. They have 30 days to do so. 

Rebellion 

The initiative to oust Maliki was led by Ibrahim al-Jaafari, a widely respected Shi’a Muslim politician. Maliki is not going to leave easily. He has called the nomination unconstitutional and used Generals loyal to him  in the army to protect the Green Zone (the centre of Iraq’s politics). 

Even if he has a constitutional case, he has lost the support of the majority of his MPs. Only 27 MPs support him, he will struggle to find 138 other MPs to support his nomination and form a Government. Only factions within the army support Maliki (the army does not act unless there is absolute unity among its ranks).

Many within the SoL were frustrated at Maliki for not obeying Ayatullah Sistani’s orders. Link. This was key to the rebellion. Maliki defends himself by rejecting Ayatullah Sistani’s intervention in politics. Maliki was eager not to leave his position in a terrible situation. He believed he had the political legitimacy and capability to save Iraq. 

Political process

Iraq’s two previous PM left only when Ayatullah Sistani took a strong stance against them. This is a bad precedence. A PM should know when it is time to step down, without a religious authority demanding it.

A functional political process must punish poor governance. Maliki’s second term as PM was poor. Corruption, mismanagement and the fall of Mosul are the biggest signs of failure. Maliki’s ouster is good for the Iraqi people. However, Iraq’s corrupt political culture is not going away easily. 

The ISIS question

How the new PM will be successful will depend on not only support from Sunni Muslims but support from the West. The West, especially the US is are responsible for the success of the ISIS. The West supported the rebels in Syria against the Assad regime. Extremist groups took over most of the rebel movement, out of which ISIS emerged.

Maliki warned the US and the West very early on that these rebels would destabilise Iraq, but it fell on deaf ears. In addition, the US refused to sell military aircrafts and other munitions to Iraq to defend itself against such an eventuality.

The new PM and new Government will not be able to defeat ISIS overnight. The Sunni Muslims in the north, who already have devolved power, will now try and squeeze as much form the central government as possible to fight against ISIS.

It will be a dangerous move by the US and the UK to arm the Peshmerga as they may use this to against the Iraqi army once ISIS is defeated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he could careless about iraq or the shia, only cares about his seat of power like a pathetic CEO being laid off.

Not so sure about that bro. The elections granted him a third term and a good CEO wouldn't step down when his company is about to go bankrupt without saving it. But literally every authority in the world betrayed Maliki which really is the only one who can grant Iraq peace, prosperity and equal rights to Shias. Within a few years expect Iraq to be run by the Shia-hating minorities. Namely the Sunnis and kurds...

Edited by Ibrahim_A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so sure about that bro. The elections granted him a third term and a good CEO wouldn't step down when his company is about to go bankrupt without saving it. But literally every authority in the world betrayed Maliki which really is the only one who can grant Iraq peace, prosperity and equal rights to Shias. Within a few years expect Iraq to be run by the Shia-hating minorities. Namely the Sunnis and kurds...

 

I disagree , I think the fact that the north is under ISIS control and his own party members, other shia groups and kurds dont want him there anymore means he has already failed and they dont need a failing CEO to stick around.

I dont know about what he has done or hasnt done all I know is when your stepping down is all that is needed to give no excuse to the enemies to break up your country, then step down already.

 

As for betrayal I dont believe that, i think loyalty should be to unity and survival of iraq not to some guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree , I think the fact that the north is under ISIS control and his own party members, other shia groups and kurds dont want him there anymore means he has already failed and they dont need a failing CEO to stick around.

I dont know about what he has done or hasnt done all I know is when your stepping down is all that is needed to give no excuse to the enemies to break up your country, then step down already.

 

As for betrayal I dont believe that, i think loyalty should be to unity and survival of iraq not to some guy.

You just bought yourself a shutup ticket first class with premium shut the fudge up rights.  According to you, no matter how good a person is he has to go because a minority doesn't want him. Have you seen how bad kurdistan gets if the Baghdad funding is cut? Last time that happened they were turned into a 3rd world country. And what would you expect? Their president dresses like a farmer, no comment. The north is under ISIS (l.a) control because your peshmerga are cowards leaving each city at the first sight of ISIS. And again, just because a kurdish person says something doesn't mean it has to be the right thing. Maliki is the only one with a backbone and please point out any unjustifiable mistake he has done and I shall change my mind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also don't like that either America or Iran or religious leadership of Iraq to interfere in the politics of Iraq. 

 

If Iraqi people have chosen Maliki, then he should govern. 

 

America is opposing Maliki. Why? This one simple question is enough for me to understand what the truth is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You just bought yourself a shutup ticket first class with premium shut the fudge up rights.  According to you, no matter how good a person is he has to go because a minority doesn't want him. Have you seen how bad kurdistan gets if the Baghdad funding is cut? Last time that happened they were turned into a 3rd world country. And what would you expect? Their president dresses like a farmer, no comment. The north is under ISIS (l.a) control because your peshmerga are cowards leaving each city at the first sight of ISIS. And again, just because a kurdish person says something doesn't mean it has to be the right thing. Maliki is the only one with a backbone and please point out any unjustifiable mistake he has done and I shall change my mind

Dude are you high?

 

Maliki has behaved like a dictator for many years now. Consolidating all security related portfolios in the cabinet and then appointing handpicked acolytes within the military and law enforcement are the signs of an autocrat, not a democrat. In the 2014 parliamentary elections, his State of Law coalition won 92 out of 328 seats, that's 28% of the parliament. Meanwhile, his part won 3.1 million votes out of the total 11.2 million cast; that's barely over 24% of the popular vote. So that's 72% of the parliament not with him, and 76% of the electorate who voted for someone else. In a parliamentary system you must obtain the confidence of the house, that's 50+1, i.e. a bare majority. He has for the past few years consistently behaved as if he's owed the prime ministerial post.

 

The current crisis is entirely of his own making. Being in power, even if you do represent the majority (which he never did by the way, because Shias have been represented by multiple parties in parliament), doesn't mean you can pretend that minorities don't exist. Even Hezbollah in Lebanon has a far better record of negotiating the treacherous political landscape that is a system of confessional politics. Several days ago I would've said that Maliki has managed to screw pretty much all important stakeholders in Iraq, except those in his parties. But today it appears even his own party has abandoned him, and rightly so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maliki's party - the state of law coalition - is actually a coalition, a group of parties who have got together to fight in the elections under one name, and this fact has to be taken into consideration too in the counting of his votes. So, if they received 92 seats, only some of those seats are for Maliki's actual party, Hizb al-Da'wah.

Then if we look into the last elections, it was complete shambles, it took him 9 months to form a government with a very shaky coaltion, and he still retained the interior ministry and the ministry for national security for himself.

Then we see what happened when Daesh suddenly swooped in and took over Mosul and Tikrik, while Maliki did nothing militarily, but rather he started lobbying to declaring a state of emergency whereby he would get even more powers.

Now, none of the Sunnis want him, none of the Kurds want him, the other Shia parties don't want him, his own party are tired of him and are leaving him, so he no longer has a mandate to stand upon, if he even had one to start off with.

What he is doing is now is threatening Iraq and blackmailiing it, in claiming that he is the only one who can fix Iraq's security issues and remove Daesh. Some people are falling for this parade, and they thnk that at this time Iraq especially needs him and his tough stance, but they fail to realize that it was his manner of stance one one side and his apathy and neglect on the other side that caused the problems. It was on his watch that terrorism increased, and it was on his watch that Daesh came unconfronted by any opposition.

Those who claim that his ousting is undemocratic and unconstitutional, it is the elected members of the parliament who are ousting him, and there is nothing more democratic than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My suspiscion has always been that mr Maliki has allowed terrorism to continue and grow because instability & fear serves his power well. Why hasnt he done anything about the terrorism until now? Had he dealt with it when it was just some booby trapped cars & angry sunnis in anbar this would've never happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My suspiscion has always been that mr Maliki has allowed terrorism to continue and grow because instability & fear serves his power well. Why hasnt he done anything about the terrorism until now? Had he dealt with it when it was just some booby trapped cars & angry sunnis in anbar this would've never happened.

That is redundant. Every time he wanted to take a step forward (electricity solutions etc.) nobody backed him. If only the parliament meetings were held live then the world could see the truth.

There is no going back now thanks to Al Hakim and Sadr so let's how this plays out long term. Who knows? Maybe this legally and constitutionally unfit PM will make Iraq better. Don't get your hopes up though as America and KSA congratulating him can only mean doom and gloom, and randomly disappointing oil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You just bought yourself a shutup ticket first class with premium shut the fudge up rights.  According to you, no matter how good a person is he has to go because a minority doesn't want him. Have you seen how bad kurdistan gets if the Baghdad funding is cut? Last time that happened they were turned into a 3rd world country. And what would you expect? Their president dresses like a farmer, no comment. The north is under ISIS (l.a) control because your peshmerga are cowards leaving each city at the first sight of ISIS. And again, just because a kurdish person says something doesn't mean it has to be the right thing. Maliki is the only one with a backbone and please point out any unjustifiable mistake he has done and I shall change my mind

i can tell you are a 12 year old kid who just learned how to use shiachat. I didnt say a "minority doesnt want him" stop add libing, i said "his own party members, other shia groups and kurds dont want him there anymore" , read properly befor embarrassing yourself. 

 

Who said anything about the kurds. His OWN party is against him, go and read some news and stopping talking nonsense!

 

Some times I wonder about the shia , they see someone in power who is shia and immediately they give him sworn allegiance like hes Imam Mahdi(as), the country is falling apart what  other proof do you need hes an incomptent? Change him with another shia for gods sake, if they were saying "Hey we dont want a shia prime minister anymore" then i would agree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i can tell you are a 12 year old kid who just learned how to use shiachat. I didnt say a "minority doesnt want him" stop add libing, i said "his own party members, other shia groups and kurds dont want him there anymore" , read properly befor embarrassing yourself.

Who said anything about the kurds. His OWN party is against him, go and read some news and stopping talking nonsense!

Some times I wonder about the shia , they see someone in power who is shia and immediately they give him sworn allegiance like hes Imam Mahdi(as), the country is falling apart what other proof do you need hes an incomptent? Change him with another shia for gods sake, if they were saying "Hey we dont want a shia prime minister anymore" then i would agree with you.

Im sorry but according to you a person should easily be able to restore a terrorist ridden country after it has gone through several wars under the 40 year long rule of a truly sectarian tyrant dictator adding to what America did in the name of democracy and having fellow politicians act like a child who was denied a toy. Take all that in and imagine having to solve that within 2 terms. If the Kurds could put aside their greediness and if the Sunnis could put aside their unwillingness to share power and if for crying out loud all the other countries could mind their own business then 8 years should have been enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In My humle opinion, Iraq will never have peace as long as they have a large sunni minority that is not the in the position of sole rulership of the country. sunnis have never accepted being ruled by non-sunnis and continuous gangster Characters will pop up claiming the Divine right to rule, slaughter & conquer, mating life hell for the other communities but especially for the shi'ites.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...