Election in Iraq since 2003
The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) was incepted in 2003 by the Bush administration after President Saddam Hussein was ousted from power. The authority was to act as a temporary government to oversee the running of Iraqi state. However, the provisional Iraqi government later took over from CPA after its sovereignty was restored.
The Iraqi National Accord took over the leadership of Iraq as a transitional government in mid 2004. This interim government ran the country until January 2005 when the country went into the polls. This marked the first ever elections involving the whole country1. A transitional National assembly comprising of 275 members was to be elected. In addition, provincial councils whose tenure of office was to run for a period of four years were elected and it included the entire region of 18 governorates. Moreover, the Kurdistan province was to have a regional assembly with 111 members. However, the minority Sunni population who had earlier boycotted the elections secured 17 seats only for the assembly and one seat for the representative in the provincial Council. Mahdi Army who was a clergy affiliated to the Shiites also abandoned the elections, a situation which led to most representatives coming from the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq2.
In October 2005, another election was held in Iraq which w as geared towards establishing a permanent constitution for the country. The transitional assembly was mandated with the task of writing a draft constitution and subjects it in an opinion poll for a yes or no vote. There was a lot of contention regarding the outcome of this process due to the radical Islamic laws which were to form the basis of constitution making process. The Islamic law of sharia also allowed regions to solicit common forces in terms of security and socio-political aspects. This meant that autonomy of the different regions was highly cherished by the Islamic ideals. On 15th day of October 2005, an opinion poll passed the draft constitution with a negligible vote from the Sunni dominated regions.
The Council of Representatives election followed thereafter in December 2005. the turnout superseded the previous elections. About 77 percent showed up to elect a 275 member team whose office lifeline would go for a period of four years. This council was supposed to replace the interim assembly. Each individual region was designated a specific number of seats3. The rationale behind this affirmative action was to ensure fair representation of the Sunnis in the government. The inauguration of the Council of Representatives formally took place on 16th March 2006. this election, however, did not resolve the chronic dispute and discontent among the different groups.
Finally, the 2009 regional elections were held on 1st February in which the provincial elections were to be held. A total of 440 seats were to be filled while the members of the council were to determine the election of governors. The Baghdad Council was won by Maliki as he managed to scoop about half of the total votes cast. On the other hand, SCIRI lost in the election.
Election in Kirkuk
The provincial elections were conducted in Kirkuk in 2009 in order to take over the position which had hitherto been held by the governorates elected in 2005. However, there a seeming delay which resulted into late elections in Kurdistan region. The main reason for this election delay was tagged on the fact that the results of the opinion polls were fundamental in setting the right pace through a decisive decision making process. Amidst this delay intrigues, some radical proposals were put forward by the Members of Parliament affiliated to the Arabs and Turkmen.4 They suggested a power sharing agreement which would usher in a council within a province and out of which there would be there would be an equal number of ten representatives from Turkmen, Arabs and Kurds with only two Assyrians included in the coalition pact. This power sharing provision was eventually entrenched in the draft bill governing elections. It was the mandate of the Iraqi Council of Representatives to ensure that the proposed clause see the light of day. This power sharing proposal did not go down well with the Kurdish affiliated parties who argued that there was no need of going into elections if the key players had already reserved positions for themselves. In spite of the simmering protests, the proposed bill was nonetheless adopted as a legally binding piece of legislation in July 2008. Nevertheless, the Kurdish President Jalal Talabani and his counterpart in the position of a vice president have vehemently asserted that they will not support the proposed clause but rather will submit it back for reconsideration.
Parliament went on a short break towards the end of July 2008. However, the House was recalled shortly afterwards to deliberate on the intrigues surrounding Kirkuk. The meeting conducted on 3rd of august did not reach at a unanimous conclusion and as a result, another meeting was organized on 4th August. Again, the legislators postponed this meeting quite a number of times as a special committee mandated to iron out the contentious clause worked on its role. Even by 9th of September 2008, no solid resolution had been struck. Further consultations and negotiations were conducted until 10th of September. This was yet another special committee comprising of a team of six members. The panel was to discuss the clause objectively and reach a compromise on behalf of the two warring parties. Eventually, a deal was reached on 24th September 2008. This definitely paved the way for the delayed Kirkuk provincial elections. The election date was slated for last day of January 2009. The terms in the agreement were that Kirkuk would be treated as a separate entity in as far as the elections were concerned. Moreover, the polls in Kirkuk alongside the other trio autonomous regions would be held at a future date. As part of the compromise, a special committee was mandated to resolve the Kirkuk intrigues and later give its feedback by the end of March 2009.
All provinces were to hold their elections with the exception of Kirkuk according to a Special United Nations Representative for Iraq5. This added weight on the need to postpone Kirkuk elections led to a grueling six month delay. The main reason for this delay was that a compromise was dearly needed in Kirkuk before going to polls. The Kurdistan Alliance party accepted the deliberations from the draft bill which was discussed on 6th of august. However, the Iraqi Turkmen Front as well as the Sadrist movement did not agree with the outcomes of the debate. Similarly, the Iraqi Accord Front was of the opposite opinion to the draft bill debate. Their main grievance was on the manner Kirkuk was referred to its status referendum. The opposing parties were adamant and persisted that the whole election program should be delayed further unless a formidable solution that would satisfy both sides was reached. This led to the extension of the panel task until the last day of May. Nevertheless, a further extension was until 6th of June.
The governorate elections in Kirkuk for 2010 were to be held using the electoral register generated in 2004. This was not accepted at all by the Kurdish people who lamented that this would cause some gross anomalies in the poll results. There was a significant number of Kurds who had occupied Kirkuk for a considerable period of time. The division of Kirkuk into multiple ethnic constituencies was then suggested by UNAMI6. Additionally, the Kurdish parliamentary unit was to obtain more than half of the total allocation. However, this radical proposal was not rejected by the Members of Parliament from the Arab side leading into a stalemate. Another avenue to resolve the deadlock was to be sought. Consequently, the Political Council for National Security took over the matter in order to seek for a lasting solution to the deadlock. The composition of this council included the President and his Premier alongside the affected party leaderships. The electoral rolls were to be harmonized right from 2004 to 2009 according to the recommendations of the Council but again when this proposal was presented in parliament, it did not sail through; the Kurds watered it down. In the long run, a final legislation was adopted which specified that the poll results in Kirkuk alongside other provinces where there were doubts of the registers would be treated as provisional until a thorough check and balance was put in place to oversee the likely loopholes. This exercise was slated to take place within a span of one year after which all the dubious and fraudulent electoral cases would be done away with. Some of the parties which were to present candidates for various positions included National Iraqi Alliance, Iraqi National Movement, and Iraqi Accord Front among others7.
Most of the Sunni Muslim candidates were among those who were restricted from participating in the 2010 elections. A total of 499 political aspirants were prohibited from the polls by the electoral commission. There were allegations that these candidates had connections with the Ba’ath Party. In spite of the numerous calls and demonstrations to reinstate banned candidates, the electoral commission remained adamant and did not reverse its decision. The rejection of the appeals came shortly before the onset of campaigns. As a result, the Iraqi National Movement withheld their campaigns. This was followed by the immediate withdrawal from electoral race by Iraqi National Dialogue Front Leader, Saleh al-Mutlaq.
The opinion polls just before elections were carried out ranked the State of Law Coalition as the leading party with an estimated 30 per cent of the total voting power. Following closely was the Iraqi National Movement with 22 per cent wile the National Iraqi Alliance was positioned third with an expected support of 17 per cent. The Iraqi Accord Front towed the list with a mere 3 % support in spite of the other parties which were not ranked in the opinion polls8.
The final election results showed little variation from the opinion polls which had been conducted in the run-up to the elections. Iraqi National Movement scooped the top position in terms of votes cast. It secured a total of 91 seats which was an extra gain of 54 seats from the previous results. The Sate of Law Coalition came second while the National Iraqi Alliance was third9. The total voter turn out was computed at 62 per cent. Moreover, the election saw Islamic Group of Kurdistan lose terribly having come last among the major parties.
References
- Anderson D. L and Stansfield V.R.G. (2010). Crisis in Kirkuk: the ethnopolitics of conflict and compromise. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.
- Polk, W, R, Lund, J (2006) Understanding Iraq: a Whistlestop tour from ancient Babylon to occupied Baghdad Cornwall: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd
- Smith, D (2006). The State of the Middle East: An Atlas of Conflict and Resolution Hong Kong: Earthscan.
- Stansfield V.R.G (2007). Iraq: people, history, politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.