What are the Iraqi political developments since the January 30 elections (2005)?  

Also see pre-election Politics FAQ  for numerous details and US comments on Iraqi politics, 2005. 

Early reports were of about a 70% turnout at the polls on Sunday, January 30, 2005.  If true, this would be higher than most experts and politicians had predicted. On Monday reports were of a 60% turnout; much higher in Shiite and Kurdish areas than in Sunni areas.  There were 5,300 polling stations.

9 suicide bombings, the most I can recall in one day, killed about 45 Iraqis.  It turns out that election day attacks totaled 300, double the record for any previous day. There was a total ban on all car and truck traffic in the country. Yet, many were pleased with this relative lack of bloodshed, less than many expected.  (Over 100 Iraqis have died in numerous pre-election days).  

President Bush expressed optimism and hope for democracy and freedom. "Iraqis...have refused to be intimidated by thugs and assassins." http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A49115-2005Jan30?language=printer

Pictures of reactions to the elections from Iraq's has been compiled by the BBC.

Concerning the election, it was not until the summer of 2005 (7/17) that we learned from the New Yorker's Seymour Hirsh that there was a plan approved by President Bush to give covert aid to some of the candidates.  Hirsh asks in his 8 page article, "Did Washington try to manipulate Iraq's election?"  It is unclear whether the plan was cancelled after Congressional opposition, but at least indirect aid was probably involved through third parties, concluded Hirsh.  If the Iraqi vote was supposed to be free and unfettered, US involvement and/or playing favorites would run counter to these publicly stated goals.  Part of the US concern in December and January was that pro-Iranians would win a free election or that there was money flowing from Iran.  In the New York Times report on the article, by Douglas Jehl and David Sanger write, "The article cites unidentified former military and intelligence officials who said the administration went ahead with covert election activities in Iraq that 'were conducted by retire CIA officers and other non-government personnel, and used funds that were not necessarily appropriated by Congress.'"  

With another round of election schedule for January 2006, this issue is likely to stay on the front-burner. 
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050725fa_fact

In his State of the Union February 2, President Bush  was expected to focus on Iraq and the elections to "express the celebrate the images of jubilant Iraqis at the polls as part of a 'democratic wave' that has also swept Afghanistan and the Palestinian territories,"  according to the front page New York Times.  His speech included:  "Our generational commitment to the advance of freedom, especially in the Middle East, is now being tested and honored in Iraq.  That county is a vital front in the war on terror, which is why the terrorists have chosen to make a stand there...And the victory of freedom in Iraq will strengthen a new ally in the war on terror, inspire democratic reformers from Damascus to Tehran, bring more hope and progress to a troubled region, and thereby lift a terrible threat from the lives of our children and grandchildren.   We will succeed because the Iraqi people value their own liberty--as they showed the world last Sunday." For more on Democracy in the Middle East, see below. 

The Democratic response from Nancy Pelosi worried about us staying indefinitely or being viewed as an occupying force.  "Despite the best efforts...Iraq still faces a violent and persistent insurgency, and...is a magnet for international terrorists.  We have never heard a clear plan from this administration for ending our presence in Iraq.  And we did not hear one tonight."

Pelosi continued, "Democrats believe a creditable plan to bring our troops home and stable Iraq must include three key elements.  First, responsibility for Iraqi security must be transferred to the Iraqis as soon as possible.  Second, Iraq's economic development must be accelerated...Third, regional diplomacy must be intensified."  

The New York Times  reacted to "Mr. Bush's Two Big Ideas" (2/3/05) from his State of the Union speech.  The voting was "only a first step" it made the "journey to establishing a stable and reasonably democratic government appear possible, but not necessarily likely."  Speaking of Iraqization, the paper felt that Bush rightly pointed to the crucial nature of the training before a US withdrawal.  But all the training will be useless "unless members o the new government are prepared to work--and risk their own political capital--to create a state that recognizes the rights and needs of all its citizens...His speech was yet another feel-good paean to freedom and democracy that did little to show the American people an exit strategy for US troops, or to show the Iraqis what we expect from them next."

Democrats were generally pleased with the elections.  Sen. Harry Reid added that the State of the Union the President needs to "spell out a real and understandable plan for the unfinished work ahead to defeat the growing insurgency, rebuild Iraq, increase political participation by all parties, especially Iraq's moderates, and increase international involvement.  But most of all, we need an exit strategy so that we know what victory is and how we can get there.  

Many Iraqis were enthusiastic and proud to have risked their lives, stood in line, and practiced democracy. A CBS-TV report on election night was that voters were "defying danger" and showing off their blue finger, showing that they had voted.

Among supporters of the war came a strong reaction from op-ed commentator Kathleen Parker.  She feels it is "astonishing to watch the Democrats' tepid reaction to million of Iraqis voting after 50 years of tyranny...a glum Kerry" on Meet the Press urged Americans not to "'overhype'" the elections.

She adds, "We know that casting ballots doesn't end the insurgency or dampen terrorist' appetite for mayhem...You don't even have to hand this to George W. Bush exclusively.  Hand it, instead, to the larger forces at play--those of the human sprit, the innate desire of every human to be free, and the unalienable right, as we ourselves declare it, of free men and women to pursue happiness."  Parker concludes, "To the extend that Iraqis took control of their own lives for even a single day--inhaling freedom and giving us hope to others still choked in the grip of tyranny--we have a right to grin."

Interim Prime Minister Allawi urged unity of all Iraqis:  "It is time to put the division of the past behind us and work together to show the world the power and potential of this  great country.  The whole world is watching us."

The Washington Post asked, "What's next for Iraqi democracy?" in a helpful Q and A piece the day after the election.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A51122-2005Jan31?language=printer

The BBC compiled a helpful Q and A on the elections.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3971635.stm

Perhaps the most powerful man in Iraq will not be a member of the Assembly:  Grand Ayatollah Sistani.

Sistani was suggested for a Nobel peace prize in March by columnist Thomas Friedman.  The journalist feels we tend to "talk about Iraq as if it is all about us and what we do."  But it was Sistani who "insisted that there had to be a direct national elation...rejeting the original goofy US proposal for regional caucuses."  He also insisted that the elections not be postponed due to violence and he ordered Shiites "not to retaliate for the Sunni Baathist and Jihadist attempts to drag them into a civil war by attacking Shiite mosques and massacring Shiite civilians."  Friedman quotes Middle East expert Stephen Cohen that Sistani "did not build his politics on negating someone else", like Arafat or Saddam.  The politics of negation "has a deep and rich history in the Middle East, because so many leaders there are illegitimate and need to negate some to justify their rule."  Sistani also "put the people and their aspirations at the center' and "brings to Arab politics a legitimate, pragmatic interpretation of Islam, one that says Islam should inform politics and the constitution, but clerics should not rule."  Friedman concludes, "How someone with his instincts and wisdom could have emerged from the train wreck that was Saddam Hussein's Iraq, I will never know."  (3/20/05) For more on Friedman since the war began, see "Op-Ed" FAQ section.

The Times surmised that the elections will help the reputation of the Americans. Gripes about security, electricity, or unemployment were usually directed at Americans but after the elections Iraqis seemed to be looking inward and stopped talking about the Americans.  "Some Iraqis saw [the election as] their own liberation, one that many did not feel on April 9, 2003.  Mr. Hussein's regime was not toppled by Iraqis but by the American military, a fact that has lingered in Iraqi minds...Suddenly empowered with the vote, Iraqis no longer seem to view America as all-powerful or themselves as unable to affect events...The calls by candidates for a timetable [for US withdrawal] have died away" (Feb. 6, 2005). 

The next day's Times lead editorial looked to the future ("Building on Iraq's Election", 2/7/05).  "The victorious parties must accept that wining back the Sunni provinces is a political challenge they must take on themselves, not a military course that can be handed off to American troops."  Given the political realities, "a two-thirds majority vote against the constitution in any 3 of Iraq's 18 provinces could block final approval.  That protection was originally designed to protest the 3 Kurdish-majority provinces" but now Sunni areas are a top concern.  "We hope Iraq's Shiite leaders understand the difference between leadership and dominance, and treat other groups better than they were treated during the long decades of Sunni dictatorship." 

One Iraqi woman was quoted in the Times:  "A hundred names on the ballot are better than one, because it means that we are free."

The Chicago Tribune's lead editorial 8 days after the election (2/8/05) was "Taking back Iraq."  In contrast to the Times, it focused on military issues somewhat more than political ones:  "A new attitude has taken hold in may quarters.  Police officers and other Iraqi security agents say that they've receive more tips from the pubic, bringing more arrests and boosting their effectiveness in their efforts to weaken the insurgency.  

The terrorists, an Iraqi official said, are 'less legitimate' now. The insurgency isn't finished.  Far from it."  The Chicago paper continues by looking at the future:  "The new government's fist order of business:  crushing the insurgents who sought to derail the election and sling the county into chaos.  This is, and always has been, a job best suited for the Iraqis themselves.  There are encouraging signs that they are warming to the task...Even the usual political blame game has changed  Ever since Saddam Hussein was toppled, many Iraqis blamed Americans for anything and everything, from spotty electricity to rising street crime."  But now, the paper writes, this blame has shifted. 

European reaction was varied.  Said one British expert, "The challenge for the British left...is:  Are you for democracy in the Middle East even though Bush is in favor of it?"  Former reformist Soviet leader Michael Gorbachev was quoted as saying, "Democracy cannot be imposed or strengthened with guns and tanks."  The anti-war London Independent editorialized that the vote did not justify the war:  "In the long term, it is possible that yesterday's elections...may be seen as marking the start of a great change across the whole region.  For good or ill, it is too early to judge.  But it would be utterly wrong, now or in the future, for President Bush or the prime minister to claim that Iraq's elections vindicate their invasion."  One would recall that the "it is too early to judge" was used by the US administration when asked about the lack of WMD found.

Jonathan Schell, writing for The Nation was, on the surface, optimistic about the elections.  Schell described the election as "a full-throated, long-suppressed cry by millions of oppressed and abused people against tyranny, torture, terrorism, penury, anarchy and war, and an ardent appeal for freedom, peace, order and ordinary life.  I had not thought that, tow years after Saddam Hussein's fall, such a powerful current of longing could well up."  Schell's reflection continues, "There was, I confess, a momentary temptation for someone lie, me, who has opposed the war fro the stat and believed it would lead to nothing good, simply to scant the importance of the event, or react to it defensively, or speed past it on the way back to an uneasy confirmation of previous views.  But the impulse passed...The first question for me, therefore, has to be how a decidedly popular election occurred under the auspices of a decidedly unpopular occupation."  

For other reaction to the elections, see "PS Op-Ed" section, especially Thomas Friedman. 

The plan for the coming months is that the 275 member Assembly will select (by a 2/3 vote) a Council of Three (Presidency Council) which will then unanimously choose a Prime Minister and appoint a cabinet. The new government should be in place in March.  The Assembly will meanwhile write a Constitution, which will be taken to referendum by October 15.  This Constitution must be approved by 2/3 of the people in 15 of 18 provinces. If it passes, a permanent Iraqi government will be voted on by December 15 of 2005 and choose and assembly and government to serve for five years.  If it doesn't pass, this will be a huge disappointment. 

We expect to hear of the election results during the first week or 10 days of February. In early February, returns from mostly southern Iraq, where most Shiites live, showed their main group  with a 4-1 margin over the Allawi slate. Shiites will no doubt expect to name the Prime Minister, which I predicted on February 5 will be al-Hakim of the United Iraqi Alliance, backed by Sistani. Commented another UIA leader, "This is the first experience of democracy in our county, and it has been a success."

On Valentine's Day the morning papers led with results of the Iraqi elections.  The first fully elected parliament would soon take their seats. The turnout, first estimated at 72%, was actually 58%.  After two weeks of waiting, the world learned the Shiites had won, but not by the amount many guessed.  As expected the mostly Shiite group won, taking a plurality though not a majority of the vote.  However, the did earn more than half the seats because to gain one seat, the party needed at least 30,000 votes (1/275th of the vote). Two-thirds votes are needed to approve the future Constitution.  89% of the votes and 255/275 seats went to the top 3 parties below. 

Allawi garnered the most votes for any individual, most coming from Baghdad and Basra.

Will Islamic law play a large role?    Koranic law, or Shariah, will certainly play some role in a Shiite dominated government.  For example, daughters would receive half of the inheritances of sons.  If conservative leaders get their way, Shariah could be the foundation for all legislation.  Since the major Shiite party earned less than 50% of the vote, a theocracy appeared less likely. Shiites will need to strike deals.

What will happen to Kurdistan?  (Also see pre-war "If Not Hussein" FAQ for background).
While a Kurdish President seem likely a more pressing, who will control the city of Kirkuk?  Author Sandra Mackey's Times Op-ed labels Kirkuk as "a setting for all the ethnic-sectarian conflicts that are the historical reality of Iraq."  It is the center of the Turkmen population and for Kurds, "a touchstone of their identify...Each group employs demographics to beck up its claim to the city."  The strategic interests revolve around the 40% of Iraq's proven oil reserves around the city.  In the 1980s Saddam Hussein expelled Kurds and brought in Arabs.  Also, Turkey is interested in keeping their own Kurds (20% of Turkey) in check and could send troops there.  Mackey adds, "Washington has quietly said that the Kurds will not be allowed to take control of Kirkuk."  I wonder, how that be wish might be enforced, since Kurds already are taking over Arab homes.

In the meantime, the question for many commentators was "What about the Sunnis?"  whose turnout was so low?  How can they be brought into the political process?  If they can't be brought in, will the insurgency worsen?  Turnout in Anbar province, west of Baghdad, was just 2%. Some Sunnis voted due to lack of security and others were simply boycotting. One commented, "Why should I [vote] when I don't know any of them?"  Many of the candidates names were not made public due to fear for their lives.  Another declared, "Look at the whole situation.  No electricity.  No gasoline.  Security--tow year and they couldn't improve it.  Bring Saddam back."

Skeptics abound from Sunnis and others.  Said one Sunni leader, "The crux of the problem is the occupation...We all realize that under occupation, there is no chance for any legitimate government.  So whether it is Jafari or Allawi and Chalabi, they are all the same to us.  They all came with the occupation."

In starting to answer this Sunni question, Francis Fukuyama, Johns Hopkins scholar, said that despite the strong desire for democracy, "You cannot have democracy if you have 5,10, 15 percent of the population so alienated that they're willing to risk everything in a violent insurgency.  A Democracy has to have something close to a 100 percent consensus that these are the rules of the game.  The Times analysis recalls that in Mozambique, Angola and Nicaragua, "exhausted left-wing government and right-wing rebels agreed that neither could win a military victory, enabling a peaceful competition at the ballot box that has endured, with warts, to this day.  In Chile and El Salvador, rebels eventually agree to split their differences, giving the weaker party legal protections and a guaranteed spot in a national political in exchange for an end to fighting."  In early February, 2005, however, one does not see the US negotiating with any insurgents. 

The new Prime Minister appeared to be  Dr. Ibrahim al- Jaafari (at left; sometimes spelled Jafari).  Who is Jaafari?  Born in the holy city of Karbala and now 58, he earned a medical degree from Mosul University.  Serving as interim vice president, he is a leader of the Dawa Party, which has deep Shiite roots in Iraq.

Jaafari was one of four candidates from the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA).  After a failed 1980 rebellion and Saddam crackdown, he fled to exile in Iran where he studied as a religious scholar in Qom, reaching the rank of mujtahid, one rung below that of ayatollah.  In 1989 he moved to London, where he still has a family home. He has been known to wish Islam to be the official religion of Iraq.  Labeled an Islamic activist but also a pragmatist, Jaafari is more moderate than some in the party:  "Islam should be the official religion...and one of the main sources for legislation, along with other sources that do not harm Muslim sensibilities...We will not have any laws that oppose Islam.  That doesn't mean we want an Islamic government....[We should] respect the freedom of religion of all Iraqis of all ethnic backgrounds and traditions."  Yet, he wants to work to include Sunnis in the government. He would like to secure a place in the government from Moqtada Sadr. 

According to the Chicago Tribune lead headline of Feb. 23, Jaafari's Dawa party has been violently anti-U.S. in the past.  For example, in 1982 members of his party carried at least two attacks, one was an assassination attempt on Saddam, on July 8.  a suicide bombing against the US Embassy in Kuwait, "launching nearly a decade of Dawa-inspired attacks against American and Western targets."  Relatives of these first bombers "hijacked an American airliner and seized American hostages to demand the release of the prisoners."  Among them was Imad Mugniyah linked to the Beirut Marine barracks bombing of '83.  Mugniyah "ranked as America's most wanted terrorist until he was supplanted by Osama bin Laden in 1998."  The Tribune added that Jaafari always denied any links to the attacks. At the end of February we learned of the arrest of two of those Saddam associative allegedly responsible for the 1982 massacre.  It followed an assassination attempt on Saddam by the Dawa party.

If he became Prime Minister, what would be Jafari's priorities?  "We have to put security as our priority.  If there is no security, there are no services, there is no business, there is no politics."  He has said he would not push for the US to withdraw anytime soon.

Also "mentioned" was Adil Adbul-Mahdi of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution, and interim finance minister.  His father was a guerilla leader against the British in 1920.  Mahdi was a playmate of Chalabi as a child.  Reports a few days after the elections returns were finalized were that Mahdi had drooped out, hoping that Hakim could help him "realize his ambitions."  

In mid-February, Chalabi was still in the running.  Two years ago, the Pentagon would have loved Chalabi; have their views changed?  For much more on Chalabi, see the pre-war FAQ "If Not Hussein."  Much to the surprise of many, Chalabi become Minister of Oil.

In terms of other leadership position, the Kurds are pushing for Jalal Talabani for President, in return for support of Jaafari.  He leads the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan.  For much more on Talabani, see the pre-war FAQ "If Not Hussein."

On February 22 we learned that Jaafari (right) was the clear favorite as Prime Minster, as Chalabi withdrew his name at the last minute. Jaafari's winning  coalition voted for him.  However, the next day, interim Prime Minister Allawi thickened the plot by declaring that he would also seek a secular coalition allowing him to become Prime Minister.

Allawi wants assurances that Iraq will not become a secretariat state which does not embrace Western democratic ideals.  Though the U.S. would obviously prefer Allawi over Jaafari, that view did not leak to the press. At first glance, Allawi chances to outmaneuver the Shiite religions parties seemed dim.  

Reaction to Jaafari came from a New York Times editorial.  The paper is concerned that he wants to carrying out "a purge" of lower level Baathists "recently cleared for reinstatement in govern jobs.  That would only punish people who joined the party for professional, rather than ideological, reason and further alienate the middle-class Sunnis the government so desperately needs to win over."  The editorial concluded, "The election in January, heroic though it was, will not be enough to make Iraq a function democracy or even ensure its future as a unified country.  The next few weeks will help determine whether the optimism generated by January's vote can be sustained" (2/23/05).

After a lull of political news in early January, we heard that the Assembly would begin on March 16. Who their leaders would be was still being negotiated behind closed doors.

Are women making progress?  During Saddam's rule, women were generally treated well, with opportunities to get an education and to vote.  Of course, many were also persecuted.  The Washington Post's Jim Hoagland highlights the fact the 30% of parliamentarians are women, a fact not highlighted by President Bush.  "

There will be no democracy in the greater Middle East until women break through the crippling restrictions and humiliations imposed on them by Arab cultural chauvinism and widespread, if perverse, interpretations of Islamic faith," writes Hoagland ("The Unheralded Revolution," 2/24/05). 

The Wall Street Journal ran a front page story in early March on women and Islamic law.  It explained that Fatima Yaqoub is one "devout Shiite Muslim is part of a group of increasingly powerful female politicians seeking to erase laws that provide women with some of the same rights as men." The article reminded us that in 2004 when Bremer was still in power, he threatened a veto in a change that would bring changes based on Islamic Sharia law. While conservatives don't want an Islamic theory like Iraq, "they've made family law the centerpiece of their efforts.  The law affect how Iraqis marry, divorce, inherit wealth, settle child-custody disputes and how courts view women's rights." Under current law, child custody "is automatically given to mothers but under Sharia would go to the father' family.  Under Sharia a husband can prohibit his wife from leaving the county alone."  Experts seem to disagree about how likely Sharia law is to take over in Iraq. 

Later that month "A Threat to Iraqi Women" was the lead New York Times editorial.  Concerned with the two month delay in forming a government, the paper was more troubled by who could be left out when a deal is finally cut.  "Those who need to worry most at this point are women, Sunni Arabs and secular Iraqis of both sexes."  For some background, the editorial reviewed Saddam's "sadistic and murderous dictatorship" which was "no feminist paradise.  But Iraqi women still managed to maintain access to education, professional, and personal opportunities denied to many of their sisters in neighboring Arab and Islamic countries.  now the future of these freedoms is in serious question...The other unspoken issue haunting these negotiations is the violently estranged Sunni Arab minority...With a new permanent constitution...time is rapidly running out."  The paper concludes, "It is now out of the 3euion for Washington to try and micromanage Iraqi political develop.  That would mock the elections and the claims of Iraqi self government.  But...this country cannot be complicit allowing haggling politicians to subordinate those goals to their own narrow  religious, separatist or divisive agendas" (3/24/05). 

Also see "Violence 2005" FAQ on "honor killings" of young women.

Is democracy spreading throughout the Middle East?  President Bush has certainly focused on this question for much of 2004 and 2005.  He proudly asserted, "The chances of democratic progress in the broader Middle East have seemed frozen in place for decades.  Yet at last, clearly and suddenly, the thaw has begun."  In his second inaugural address he didn't directly mention terrorism.  "The Rhetoric of Freedom", opined the Washington Post noted that the war on terrorism must now become "a global struggle against dictatorship.  'The survival of liberty in our land...increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands...The fire of freedom...will reach the darkest corners of our world.'"  The Post feels these goals are "an extraordinary escalation of national aims, but it's not clear what practical action, if any he has in mind...He never once mentioned Iraq, where at least 11 US solders have died in the previous seven days."  The President used the word freedom 27 times and liberty 15 times.  

Elections took place among the Palestinian authority in the fall of 2004.  Secondly, in  late February protests in Beirut helped lead to the resignations of the pro-Syrian government.  Thirdly, Egypt's President Mubarak announced that opposition parties would be allowed in the next elections.  Whether any or all of these trends will lead to substantive, long-term democratic reform, is hard to know.  In addition to commentators below on Democracy, see "Op-Ed" for much more Post-Saddam commentary. 

Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post commented in "A Mideast Makeover?" that "virtually no one in Washington expected such a snowballing of events following Iraq's elections."  If the positive changes continue it won't be "entirely Bush's creation:  the tinder for ignition has been gathering around the stagnant and corrupt autocracies of the Middle East for years.  Still, less than two years after Saddam Hussein was deposed, the fact is that Arabs are marching for freedom and shouting slogans against tyrants in the streets of Beirut and Cairo--and regimes that have endured for decades are visibly tottering.  Those who claimed that US intervention could never produce such events have reason to reconsider." 

Diehl was followed by Post colleagues Richard Cohen and David Ignatius.  Cohen's "Middle East Side Story" looks at the significance of Saudi Arabian municipal elections, Egypt's possible new opposition, Syria's signs of accommodation in Lebanon and arresting Saddam's half-brother, and the Palestinian free election.  The elections of Palestinian and Iraqis

"were seen by anyone in the region with a TV set and a satellite dish--which is to say almost everyone.  Those viewers might have wondered--the must have wondered--why the same could not be done in their own counties."  Cohen continued, "Given what' happening, it's understandable that many eyes have shifted to Washington with anew sense of appreciation.  Could ti be that the neocons were right and that the invasion of Iraq, the toppling of Hussein and the holding of elections will trigger a political chain reaction throughout the Arab world.  It would be the Middle East equivalent of what happened in Eastern Europe when the Soviet Union finally sank to its knees...Maybe...Yet swaths of the Middle East remain...emphatically not Eastern Europe, where in come cases democracies were restored, not created out of whole cloth, and where draconian population shifts had largely eliminated the region's version of tribalism.  In a word, Cairo is now Warsaw--and the Iranian revolution proves that reactionaries want change, too."  Is the US to be viewed as liberator?  Cohen concluded, "When Baghdad fell and the statue of Hussein in Fridaus Square was initially draped with an American flag, the crowds went sullen--an early and unmistakable sign that the US was not going to be universally greeted as as liberator  Now some of us may be prematurely celebrating the changes in the Arab world, possibly mistaking them for what has happened in quite different places."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61633-2005Feb28.html

The next day in the Post (3/2/05) David Ignatius was also cautiously optimistic about "Managing A Mideast Revolution."

As he put it, "We are now watching a glorious catastrophe take place...The old system that had looked so stable is ripping apart, with each beam puling another down as it falls.  The sudden stress that produced the catastrophe was the American invasion of Iraq...but this Arab power structure has been rotting at the joints for a generation.  The real force that's bringing it down is public anger...But catastrophic change is dangerous, even when it's bringing down a system people detest . This is not a time for US triumphalism, or for gloating and lecturing to the Arabs.  That kind of arrogance got us into trouble in Iraq during the first year of occupation.  It was only when Iraqis began to take control of their own destinies that this project began to go right. The same rule holds for Lebanon, Egypt, and the rest.  America can help by keeping on the pressure, but it's their revolution. Ignatius' connection to Iran is that "the biggest danger of all is Iran's bid to manipulate the new government in Iraq.  already there are signs of its influence...The chief US demand should be that they key security portfolios of defense, interior and intelligence must remain in friendly Iraqi hands."   The piece concludes, "There's no stopping the Middle East's glorious catastrophe now that it has begun.  We are careening around the curve of history, and its' useful to remember a basic rule for navigating slippery roads:  once you're in the curve, you can't hit the brakes.  The only way for America to keep this care on the road is to keep its foot on the accelerator." 

Krauthammer's March 18 commentary ("What's Left?  Shame.") complemented President Bush for declining an invitation "to claim vindication for his policy of spreading democracy in the Middle East.  After two years of attacks on him as a historical illiterate pursing the childish fantasy of Middle East democracy, he was entitled to claim a bit of credit.  Yet he declined, party out of modesty...and partly because he has learned the perils of declaring any mission accomplished."  Giving us a historic parallel, Krauthammer continued, "The democracy project is, of course, just beginning.  We do not yet know whether the Middle East today is Europe 1989 or Europe 1848."  Like 1848, "The Arab Spring of 2005 will be noted by history as a similar turning point for the Arab world. We do not yet know, however, whether this initial flourishing of democracy will succeeded.  The Syrian and Iraqi Baathists, their jihadists allies, and the various regional autocrats are quite determined to suppress it...As an advocate of that notion of democratic revolution, I am not surprised that the opposing view was proved false.  I am surprised only that it was proved false so quickly" by the Iraqi voters.  "The left's patronizing, quasi-colonialist view of the benighted Arabs was not just analytically incorrect.  It was morally bankrupt, too."  He concluded that the left is "forced to acknowledge that those brutish American led by the simpleton cowboy might have been right.  It has not choice.  It is shamed."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A45508-2005Mar17?language=printer 

In the New York Times Thomas Friedman spent the most ink on the growing Democracy issue.  Focusing on Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt and Palestine-Israel (leaving off Ukraine and Saudi Arabia) he describes the "victory lab" the administration has been taking

"taking credit for the outbreak of democracy in the Arab world.  While I disagree with many Bush polices, I think the president does deserve credit for unleashing something very import in the politically moribund Arab East...Bush while the necessary conditions many now be in place, the sufficient conditions for democratization are still not present in any of these arenas...The common theme...is that they key parties are doing the right things for the wrong reason...but you will only have self-sustaining democratization in the Middle East if people start do the right thing for the right reasons..." (3/31/05).

In mid-April (4/20/05) Friedman returned to the Democracy theme.  "For me, the war...was always about democracy and the necessity of helping it emerge in the Arab-Muslim world.  I am thrilled that things have come this far." 

Also in the Post was Egyptian Mona Eltahawy in "Give the Arabs Credit".  She feels that "There is a way to talk about the effect of the Iraq war on the rest of the Arab world without actually supporting that war."  She talks about the negatives of the war (moral failures, violence toward civilians) but is equally "fed up with having to remind those who opposed the war that in their rush to condemn the Bush administration, they should not ignore or condone the continued tyranny of Arab leaders...And now, I have not forgotten that the current administration, like it predecessors, continues to support many of those same dictators."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28523-2005Mar11?language=printer

Middle East expert and prolific writer Dilip Hiro tried to allay western fears of strict Islamic law, as in Iran, coming to Iraq's constitution.   He labeled such concerns unwarranted and "highly unlikely...While Iran is 90% Shiite, at least 35% of Iraqis are Sunni, including both Arabs and Kurds."  With veto power "there is no chance that a Shiite legal concept will become the foundation of the country's law."  Could Iraq follow the Saudi example?  Hiro recalls that Saudi Sunnis are governed by the "puritanical Wahhabi sect."  But a similar sect in Qatar is more democratic.  "Instead of worrying about the mixing of faith and law, let us see how the emergent Islamic Republic of Iraq creates a category by itself among democratic yet religious states of the Persian Gulf."  

Agreeing more with Hiro than Krauthammer was Eric Margolis, a contributing foreign editor or the Toronto Sun.  He feels that most of the reforms are "pure sham...The Arab world's only truly fee election was held in 1991 in Algeria's US-and French-supported military regime.  Islamic parties won a landslide.  The military annulled the vote and jailed Islamist leaders--back by Washington and Paris....The Bush administration is right.  Arabs need democracy.  But it is behaving like a bull in the mideast china sop and is following contradictory polices.  Bush wants more popular, less dictatorial regimes, but only those catering to US strategic interests."  

See "Op-Ed" for much more Post-Saddam commentary. 

Among newspaper reaction to growing democratic moves,  came the New York Times in their lead editorial of March 1, "Mideast Climate Change."  "It's not spring yet, but a long-frozen political order seems to be cracking all over the Middle East.  Cautious hopes for something new and better are stirring along the Tigris and the Nile, the elegant boulevards of Beirut, and the sand-swept towns of the Gaza Strip.  It is far too soon for any certainties about ultimate outcomes.  In Iraq, a brutal insurgency still competes for headlines with post-election democratic maneuvering."  To what extend should the US administration gain credit?  They are entitled "to claim a healthy share of the credit for many of these advances.  It boldly proclaimed the cause of Middle East democracy at a times when few in the West though it had any realistic chance.  And for all the negative consequences that flowed from the American invasion of Iraq, there could have been no democratic elections there...if Saddam...had still been in power.   Washington's challenge now lies in finding ways to nurture and encourage these still fragile trends without smothering them in a triumphalist embrace."  The "paper of record" concludes, "Over the past two decades...the Middle East stagnated in a perverse time warp that reduced its brightest people to helplessness or barely contained rage.  The wonder is less that a new political restlessness is finally visible, but that it took so long to break through the ice." 

The Chicago Tribune make the democracy their lead editorial on March 6.  Defining the Middle East spring (like the Prague Spring of the '60s), they wrote, "Each day, new tremors signal populist demands in lands where freedom has not thrived.  This is, then, one of those explosive moments when history is written not in books, but screaming headlines."  Lebanese leader Walid Jamblatt, a Druze Muslim, was cynical about Iraq.  "But when I saw the Iraqi people voting...8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world."  The paper points out that the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel asked, "'Could George W. Bush be right?'"  Bush had commented, "I believe democracy can take hold in parts of the world that have been condemned to tyranny.  And I believe when democracies take hold, it leads to peace.'"  The editorial concludes that the US's "muscular diplomacy unarguably is playing a crucial role throughout the Mideast.  For on repressive regime after another, the sight of American soldiers at long last enforcing UN resolutions--and bestowing democracy on a subjugated people--surely must concentrate the mind.  History written in headlines can reverse course just as fast.  We are a long way from knowing whether the still unfinished liberation of Iraq helps transform a troubled region.  but for the foes of freedom, the Mideast must feel like a suddenly smaller place."

See "Op-Ed" for much more Post-Saddam commentary.  Also see a continuation of the "Democracy Spreading" discussion in "Iraq Politics 2006" FAQ.

While the position of Prime Minister remained undecided into mid-March, President Bush selected a replacement for US Ambassador Negroponte.  Zalmay Khalilzad, the Ambassador to Afghanistan.  Khalilzad is described as "blunt", "garrulous" and Afghan-American.

The new Parliament had its first meeting on March 16, 2005.  President Bush called it "a hopeful moment."  It was the first elected Parliament for Iraq in 50 years. Six weeks after the elections, it was still not clear who would become Prime Minister and be part of the Presidency council.  Negotiations dragged on.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A39352-2005Mar16?language=printer

At his press conference that day, President Bush said about Democracy:  "There's a lot of work to be done...It's a wholesome process and it's being done in a transparent way...It's important for people in that region to see what is possible in a free society."

In late March there was a lull in Iraq news.  For the first time I recall in many months, for the second time in a week there was no Iraq story on the front page of the New York Times or on the op-ed pages.  Perhaps this was due to the broad coverage given to the Shiavo case and to the Minnesota school shootings.  

The long delay in forming a government has stalled projects at ministries and is sowing confusion among current government workers about their duties," Iraqi officials tell the New York Times.  What is causing the delay or quagmire?  Control of oil fields is one major issue. The Kurds hope they will eventually control Kirkuk and its oil fields. 

Though there was discussion about democracy coming to other Middle East countries, two months after the Iraqi elections, they could not form an assembly.  The front page Tribune reported on March 30 that the Assembly could not even :deliver on its most modest goal", to select a Speaker. The session then "deteriorated into acrimonious protests and an abrupt decision to finish the session in secret...Authorities removed television cameras the reporters from the hall."  President Bush' reaction was, "In a democratic Iraq these differences will be resolved through debate and persuasion instead of force and intimidation."  

The Tribune reported for the first time I had read that the making of a Constitution would likely be delayed six months, and so would the election of a permanent government until June 2006, according to leading Iraqi officials.  The plan had been to complete a Constitution by August of 2005.

Not until April 6 did we learn that Iraq had selected a new President, Kurdish leader Talabani.  He and the two new vice-presidents will now select the powerful Prime Minister. Talabani called for an amnesty for Iraqi insurgents, even those who had killed Americans.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28680-2005Apr6?language=printer

Soon after his appointment, Talabani offered amnesty to insurgents.  He labeled them as being misled by foreign terrorists.  "We should find the political and peaceful solutions with those Iraqis who were deceived into joining the terrorists to afford them amnesty and invite them to join the democratic process."  Allawi offered a similar amnesty in 2004, but, unlike Talabani, made exceptions for those who had raped, kidnapped or killed.  

In July, Jaafari traveled to Iran, where he had lived in exile for years. He announced closer relations between the two countries. During the Iran-Iraq War, Jaafari was on the side of Iran.

April 9 marked the second anniversary of the fall of Saddam.  Tens of thousands protesting in Baghdad, calling for an end to the US-led occupation and a speedy trial for the former dictator.  Many protestors are loyal to Muslim cleric Sadr.

The delay in forming the new government "fueled a revival of the insurgency, eroded the faith of ordinary Iraqis in the democratic process and jeopardized the timetable for a full transition to democracy" according to Tribune  sources quoting US officials.  The country has been "effectively without leadership at a crucial time.  The insurgency has "bounced back with a vengeance." The largest question seemed to be, how to include Sunnis?  

The push for a new government was made by Rice and Cheney, in hopes that the stalemate could be ended.  These two top Americans "personally exhorted" top Kurd and Shiite politicians to come together.  This was a change from the hands-off approach, according to the front page Times article of April 25. American officials feel the delay is helping the insurgency. 

Some Iraqis feel Allawi is too sympathetic to Sunnis, while some Kurdish leaders feel Jaafari is too Islamic. 

Negotiations with insurgent groups had been taking place during the spring and summer of 2005.  Americans were meeting with leaders, mostly Sunnis. These negotiations would have seemed much less likely in 2004.  Both sides portray the other side as desperate to talk. Zarqawi was not among those being talked to. Sadr probably was not, either.  Two of the groups are called Islamic Army in Iraq and the Mujaheddin Army.  Demands would include a timetable for withdrawal and steps to reduce the influence of neighboring Iran, according to a former minister in Iraq's government.  

With a spokesperson announced July 3 for some of the insurgent groups, it is now somewhat easier to ascertain who did the bombings and for what reasons.  

One UN official who had served in Iraq saw a split between the insurgent groups between the nationalist Iraqis and the Jihadist who kill innocent civilians. 

A Brussels summit of June 22 included Rice urging Europeans and others to "help Iraq rebuild" and keep their previous pledges of financial support.

After weeks with no US ambassador, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad prepared to take over in late June of 2005.  As it turned out, he didn't make any public statements until late-July. Khalilzad, 54, was born in Afghanistan,  came to the US as a teenager, earned a PhD from the University of Chicago and was Ambassador in Kabul for 18 months. The highest ranking Muslim in the US administration.  The new ambassador said of Iraq in mid-June, "Failure is not an option.  There is too much at stake.  I'm not a potted plan.  I will be available to help."

On April 29, 2005 a new cabinet was finally announced by Jaafari.  However, seven posts were not filled, including interior and oil.  Few Sunnis had been yet appointed to the cabinet.  About 1/3 of MPs did not come to vote that day which "spoke for the insurgent's power," according to John Burns of the New York Times Also, that day there were 10 suicide car bombings. See more on post-Jan. 30 election violence.  The last appointments were filled on May 8, including a Sunni at Interior. In mid-June, after weeks of negotiations, it appeared that more Sunnis would be part of the committee drawing up the constitution.

Burns  calls the period of May-August "A Crucial Window" because parliament has until August 15, 2005 to approve a new Constitution.   The new cabinet was "a moment in history: for generations, going back to Ottoman imperial rule that ended with World War I,  Shiites, accounting for 60 percent of the population, have been a political underclass.  Until American troops toppled Saddam Hussein two years ago, political power rested with the Sunni minority" with about 15-20% of the 25 million population.  The new government has cabinet posts allotted:

Some critics of the appointments argue that the "wrong Sunnis" are being appointed or that their appointment is merely meeting a unspoken quota.

To draft a new Constitution, a 55-member committee was named in May.  The goals are to:
-- adopt the constitution by August 15;
--submit it to a national referendum by October 15; and 
--elect a new 5-year government in December 2005

Thought the press was generally quiet in June and July about progress toward a Constitution, it became apparent that the lack of news meant the August deadline would likely not be reached.  Is this such a bad prospect?  

No, according to the director of the Project on Failed States at Stanford, J. Alexander Thier, who advised the writers of the Afghanistan Constitution.  Thier's "Iraq's Rush to Failure" (New York Times, 7/14/05), opened, "Iraq is rapidly approaching a watershed moment:  the unveiling of its new constitution.  This event will probably be seen in retrospect as either the moment that the leaders of Iraq consecrated their troubled nation, or as the opening act of the country's descent into civil war...Despite President  Bush' no-retreat-no surrender rhetoric, the military and political truth about Iraq is growing clear;  The American military will not defeat this insurgency.  The rebels can be defeated only by political reconciliation among Iraqi leaders and the constitution al process is the essential step. The purpose of any constitution is to channel conflict and completion into politics."

Thier feels that a constitution cannot be written in weeks, partly because Iraqi politicians need to learn to trust each other.  "If the Sunnis remain convinced they'll never get a decent shake under Shiite rule, why shouldn't they fight?  If the Kurds believe they're better off without the rest of Iraq, why not let the county fall apart."  His suggestion for a course of actions involve having truly meaningful discussions (with the extra six months) and make the process more inclusive.  The Constitutional expert concludes, "No, a legitimated constitution in and of itself will not destroy the insurgency.  But it would provide the most powerful counterinsurgency weapon available to the Iraqi people:  a shared vision of a peaceful future and an agreement on how to get there."

As politics and violence continue to overlap, two members of the Constitutional Committee were killed in mid-July and a few others then resigned. The Sunnis one the committee then announced that they would suspend their participation.  A Constitution without strong Sunni participation would likely been seen an illegitimate. 

Developments in May included a surprise visit by Sec. of State Rice, both to northern Iraq Kurdish area and to the fortified green zone of Baghdad. The Secretary urged a larger Sunni role in making the constitution.  According to the front page Times of May 15 and 16, Shiite leaders "should respond rapidly and effectively...with conciliatory gestures.. to any sign that wavering elements of the Sunni Arab insurgency might be ready to turn to peace."

Rice would be pleased with the early July urging of a leading Sunni umbrella group asking its fellow Sunnis to take part in the next elections, despite their reservations.  Perhaps this could lead some Sunnis to be less attracted to the insurgents. 15 Sunnis were also added to the committee former the constitution. 

President Bush urged patience and lowered the bar with regard to the building of Democracy.  In mid-May he noted that the U.S. had gotten off to a rocky start after 1776 with the Articles of Confederation.  The Times reported that "it could take years for newly free countries to establish the institutions necessary for stability and prosperity...Mr. Bush listed a widely agreed upon set of prerequisites for success, including freedom of speech and assembly, a market economy and the rule of law."  He also added freedom of worship.  

The U.S. administration is looking at "rejections elements" of Sunnis.  They want to set up courts to try suspects help for a year or more without legal recourse. 

In early July 2005, Charles Krauthammer explained that a constitution should not be Iraq's top priority and put a a trial balloon for a delay in the constitution.  He worries that Americans will vote in 2008 to not "renew the contract" to stay in Iraq, because the President has said "this will not happen on my watch."  Though "Americans love constitution...we had practice and lots of time...It will be impossible to write it in the next six weeks...Nor is the six month extension the answer...The answer is to shelve it indefinitely...No constitution will legitimize sectarian militia."  Instead, Krauthammer suggest just making election law for now.  He concludes, "Written constitution are swell.  But lots of successful places (Britain, for example) get along without one.  So should Iraq, at least for now."

By late July it looked like Krauthammer and Thier would not get their wishes when news of progress toward a Constitution finally came to the press and drafts were circulated  Though Sunnis moved to withdraw of two of their colleagues had been killed, framers vowed to press on. Among concerns for the US would be the role of Islamic law and the rights of women, some in place since 1959.

For example, Article 14 would repeal the 1959 law, considered one of the most progressive in the Middle East toward women.  This change would upset many women's groups, some of whom were protesting in Baghdad. The head of Women's Freedom in Iraq Movement, said, "We reject the changes....because some Islamic parties want to kidnap the rights of women in Iraq.  We reject such attempts because women should be full citizens with full rights, not semi-human beings. " Rights would be changed for divorce and family inheritance.  Under Islamic law, a woman inherits half of what a man would.  

The New York Times obtained a draft of the Constitution and on July 19 reported that equal rights for women are guaranteed "as long as those rights do not 'violate Shariah' or Koranic law."  References to religions law were not part of the interim Constitution put together by Americans and others in early 2004.  Article 14 would allow Shiite women, no matter what their age, to marry only with permission from their families.  In some cases, a man could probably obtain a divorce by "stating their intention three times in their wives' presence.  

A few weeks later, Secretary Rice responded on the PBS Newshour, "Obviously the US stands for equality for women worldwide,"  Perhaps she was referring to the guaranteed quota that 25% of seats in Parliament would be reserved for women. For perspective, the US House and Senate are 14% of 15% women.

Other important issues to be resolved are regional autonomy, electoral law, and the control of revenues from natural resources. Regional autonomy might be the most difficult, as Kurds are used to years of autonomy .  Would the Kurds demand total control of Kirkuk?  Just days before any extension in the Constitution was to be determined, Iraqi leaders talked of the "dominant role of religion" that would likely be part of the document.  Shiites would be more pleased with this development than Sunnis, Kurds, Christians, or secular Iraqis. 

After Sunni Constitution committee members were killed in July, a delay seemed more likely. (Also see Violence FAQ).  They demanded more security and some Sunnis pulled out of the process. Most returned about a week later as the August 15 deadline approached.

Rumsfeld made a surprise visit to Baghdad in late July and pressed Iraqi leaders to settle their differences for the constitution and not to ask for an extension. He also urged Iraqis to push Syria and Iran to stop supporting the insurgency.

Liz Sly, reporting for the Chicago Tribune from Baghdad, wrote a front page story "Islam to guide Constitution " (7/28/05).  Islam will be "the main source" of the nation's laws and no law will be permitted that contradicts Islam.  She could lead to an Islamic state, much like Iran or Saudi Arabia.  The State Department had no comment on the predictions from the Constitution committee, but US officials do not want Islam to play such a dominant role.  How will the minority Christians feel about this Constitution , I wonder.  

During the August negotiations the Washington Post editorial page felt that there was evidence that "the constitution-writing process its itself driving some of the violence...Any legal formulation that effectively gives unelected clerics the right to overrule the decision of democratically elected politician carries the potential not only to deprive Iraqi women of the political rights but also to undermine Iraqi democracy itself."  

The August deadline passed without the 71 Iraqis asking for an extension of the August 15 deadline.  Though the Bush administration is pleased the deadline will likely be met, and the "political process will stay on track", some key issues may not be dealt with and "left to fester" (NYTimes, 8/1/05).  The US has linked political process with a withdrawal of troops beginning in early 2006. 

However, in the coming weeks 3 deadlines were missed for completing the Constitution.  President Bush personally phoned Shiite leaders in hopes that they would continue to work through the Assembly and compromise.  Mocked columnist Maureen Dowd, "the Shiites and Kurds ignored the president and skewered the Sunnis.  Iraq, as it turns out, is the one branch of American government that the Republicans don't control."  

"Have a good constitution is far more important than having an immediate constitution , said Iraq expert Kenneth Pollack, at the Brookings Institute.  

Talks reached a breaking point and negotiations ended on August 26 as Shittes and Kurds gave up negotiating with Sunnis, and Sunnis negotiators were dismayed.  The entire text of the Constitution is 27 pages.  

One Sunni negotiator remarked, "We have reached a point where this constitution contains the seeds of the division of Iraq."  The front page New York Times article labeled the decision to abandon negotiations "a heavy blow for the Bush administration.". 

President Bush praised the Constitution as a milestone in Iraqi history:  "Completing the next step in their transition from dictatorship to democracy."  He emphasized the protection for individual rights and commented, "There are strong beliefs among other Sunnis that this constitution is good for all Iraqis."  He also praised the process:  "What's important is that the Iraqis are resolving these issues through debate and discussion, not at the barrel of a gun."

Ambassador Khalilzad called the document "an enlightened synthesis of universal human rights and democratic values and Iraqi traditions--including Islam."  It is "one of the most progressive governing documents in the Muslim world in terms of its protection of rights of religious freedom and conscience."  

Others fear the constitution could lead to an Islamic state. A New York Times editorial spoke of "The president's strange declaration yesterday that the draft constitution would protect the rights of women and minorities."  Secular Sunni and long-time American ally Adnan Pachachi agrees with much of the document but is troubled by the "overtly Islamic provision, like giving cleric a role in adjudicating family law.   "They want to inject religion into everything, which is not right."

Informal on the street interviews included Shiite database operator in Baghdad, who told the New York Times, "What can I do with a constitution if I have not water, gasoline and electricity?."  The main problem, she felt,  was security, especially for women. 

Under the constitution, Islam will be the official religion and "a main source" of Iraqi law.  According to Times analysis, "Clerics will in all likelihood have seats on the Supreme Court, where they will be empowered to examine legislation to make sure it does not conflict with Islam.  They will be given an opportunity to apply Islamic law in family disputes over matters like divorce and inheritance."

For editorial reaction to the constitution , see "Editorials"  One specific op-ed came from Charles Krauthammer, not a fan of the "rush" to make a Constitution.  He defends those who attack the document:  "The idea that it creates an Islamic theocracy is simply false.  Its Islamist influence is relatively mild....The rule of sharia is significantly constrained...No law may contradict Islam.  But it also says that no law may contradict democratic principles."  The Washington Post columnist concludes, "That the previously victimized 80% [non-Sunni] should not wish to be held hostage to the political demands of their former oppressors should hardly be a surprise.  Nonetheless, they still managed to produce a perfectly reasonable constitutional document that deserves far more respect than it has received from the knee-jerk critics here at home." For more on Krauthammer, see "Post Saddam Op-ed"

What were the issues of constitutional disagreements?  Generally, federalism and ex-Baathists were the two biggest issues.  Other issues of disagreement included the role of Islam and women's rights. For example, Kurds could keep their autonomy in the north.  However, Sunnis worry that if Shiites are allowed autonomy in the south, that the Sunnis will be left with no oil revenues and little central government protection for their issues. The Kurds seem to get autonomy and the Shiites got their religious law.  The Constitution also outlaws local militia, which are common in Iraq, especially among Kurds and Shiites. If are strong central government can maintain stability with the security forces, these militia might be convinced to disband. 

Can the constitution pass a referendum?  We will find out on October 15.  It will be rejected if 2/3 of the voters in any three of the 18 provinces vote against it.  Sunnis make up a majority in three provinces.  Sadr is talking about urging his followers to also vote against it.  If it is voted down, Parliament is disbanded and the process starts again from the beginning.  If it passes, a permanent government is voted on by the end of December. 

The Iraqi Parliament changed the rules in September, about two weeks before the referendum.  The rules changed virtually assured that it would pass, because 2/3 of registered voters (not actual voters that day) had to vote against it in three provinces.   After pressure from the UN, the Parliament quietly reversed the changes 10 days before the vote. 

What will Sadr do?  Some experts feel he still envisions a Shiite theocracy for all of the country.  "He sees himself as the Khomeini of Iraq", says one US scholar.  "Religion is higher than everything,' commented a Sadr aide.  He may join forces with disaffected Sunnis.  But Sadr's power is limited, suggest others, because as long as he cannot issue fatwas, "he doesn't present a threat to the Shia.'(NYTimes, 9/11/05)

A breakthrough on the Constitution hit the morning papers of October 12, just three days before the referendum.  After days of seemingly fruitless negotiators, US and Iraqis made progress.  In a new compromises and revisions, negotiated behind closed doors, some Sunni leaders were ready to support the Constitution .  The last-minute, major changes appeared to be twofold:
1.  Changes can be made to the Constitution right away, in early 2006, rather than the previous restriction of waiting eight years.
2.  Former Baath party members who did not commit crimes will no longer be blacklisted.  Sunnis controlled most parts of the government under Saddam
Though the changes included the goal of a unified nation, Sunnis are still concerned about the oil-rich southern Shiite provinces become independent.  
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/12/AR2005101201450_pf.html

Other parts read:  "No law can be passed that contradicts the fixed rules of Islam."  Who will determine if such a law is legitimate?  On oil money and federalism, experts predict the the Supreme Federal Court will decide these tricky and difficult questions.

The Post has graphics of some of the highlights of the Constitution.

How did the constitutional vote turn out?  Turnout was reported high, predicted at between 60 and 70%.  "Day is mostly peaceful" was the New York Times lead story. A relatively peaceful Saturday vote was partly due to a ban on private cars.  Sunni insurgents may have wanted peace so fellow Sunnis could turn out and vote against the Constitution.  President Bush, through his spokesman, praised the voting.  Two Sunni dominated provinces were predicted to vote against, but unless a surprise third province also did so, the Constitution was predicted to pass.  

Reaction to the vote came from the Chicago Tribune in their editorial entitled, "Another victory for Iraqis."  The paper site the five times in two years that Iraqi citizens 'have proven their doubters dead wrong" with political progress.

President Bush, through a spokesman, was pleased to hear that "Iraqis turned out in large numbers to freely express their views on this historic day.  It appears that the level of violence was well below the last election.  Today's vote deals a severe blow to the ambitions of the terrorists and sends a clear message to the world that the people of Iraq will decide the future of their country through peaceful elections, not violent insurgency."

Alleged fraud seemed apparent in the few provinces were pro-Constitution vote totals were 99%. 

The constitutional referendum passed, we learned on October 25.  As Washington was filled with anticipation of probable indictments coming to the White House over the WMD/Wilson/CIA outing, this was certainly good news for the President to focus on.  78% of voters approved the referendum.  A majority voted against it in 3 of 18 provinces, all heavily Sunni.  One province was 96% against, another 81%, but the third, Ninevah, only 56% (10% short).  

As preparations began for the December 15 election to select a permanent, four year government/Parliament,  political alliances were formed, first among Sunnis, and then days later, among Shiites.  Kurds have maintained an alliance between their main two political parties.  By early December there were 230 groups or individual politicians to have registered.  They have formed 10 coalitions with 7000 candidates. With the 275 seats of Parliament  divided by province, Sunnis are guaranteed to get representation.  The election would be the third of the year in Iraq.  Other political turning points include
--Jan. 28, 2004:  US hands over power to interim government
--Jan. 30, 2005:  Iraqis elects interim assembly
--Oct. 15, 2005:  Constitutional referendum approved

Former interim Prime Minister Allawi and Chalabi have formed a more secular and broad-based alliance, which would be to the liking of US authorities. Top cleric Sistani is not expected to issue a fatwa in favor of a certain Shiite party, as he did in the January elections. That week the Iraqi Vice-President's brother was assassinated

Chalabi, of the INC, is also still in the mix.  Despite the criticism of some, including Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, Chalabi visited the US in mid-November.

The Times editorial of Chalabi's visit reminded us that it was Chalabi who imagined our 2003 forces greeted with "undiluted joy." He urged a blanket decree against all former Baath Party members, including teachers.  "That exclusion helped cement the disastrous estrangement of the Sunni Arab middle class.  Mr. Chalabi personally took charge of enforcing this purge."  He is also "suspected by US government investigators of tipping off Iran" that US had broken their spy code.  "Mr. Chalabi's record as a double-dealer and unreliable source stretches back for decades"  who was telling the Pentagon and the administration before the war "largely what they wanted to hear."

Back in 2003, astute students and careful readers of this web site will recall that Paul Bremer abolished the Iraqi army.   Many of these 400,000 members of the army jointed the insurgency and the others were not available to provide security.   This policy was formally reversed by the Iraqi government in November, though there had been quiet recruitment for 18 months.  On its front page story, the Times labels the move as "the most public departure yet from an American policy instituted" by Bremer.  Those up to the rank  of major are allowed to rejoin the military.  This move could show that Shiites are reaching out to Sunnis before the December 15 elections.  It might also signal that there are not enough Iraqis being trained to maintain security. 

In mid-November 2005, Secretary of State Rice made a surprise visit to Iraq, including stops in Mosul and Baghdad.  She hopes to get Sunni more invested in the elections.  Just a few days later Kofi Annan made his first visit to Iraq since the war began over 2 1/2 years ago. For more an Annan, see "Allies/UN" FAQ

Rice feels that if Iraq does not succeed and "should Iraq become a place of despair, generations of Americans would also be condemned to fear...So our fates and our futures are very much linked."

In mid-November President Talabani was in Cairo for the Arab League meeting.  He offered to meet with insurgents.  These negotiations have been reported to have been going on quietly for a few months. On November 26, the Times reported that some insurgents groups had contacted Talabani to ask about joining the political process.

With the Talabani offer being given little criticism, soon, the US Ambassador in Iraq, Khalilzad, went public with the suggestion that he will talk with insurgents, as long as they are not Saddam loyalists or foreign jihadists.

Also at the summit, Iraqi Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds agreed that there should be a timetable with withdrawal of US troops.  However, they did not agree on a specific date.  The group debated the question, "What is a terrorist?"  with Sunnis talking of the legitimate need to fight.

Will Sunnis vote?  This will be the third election of 2005. Few voted in the January 2005 elections, but it seems more will this time, regretting that they ceded power to Shiites and Kurds.  A hard-line Sunni argued that resistance was only a natural outcome of the occupation. Harith al Dhari felt the violence would continue until the US set a timetable.  al-Dhari is seeking a gradual, orderly withdrawal.  Sunni politicians who have committed themselves to elections have many enemies.  

Two weeks before the elections we learned, originally in an LA Times report, that the US military was planting optimistic stories in the Iraqi press, even paying bribes to get certain stories published.  The would appear to be an embarrassing situation, given that Secretary Rumsfeld loves to talk of the growing Iraqi free press. I label this ironic and hypocritical action as "Pentagon Propaganda."  
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/30/AR2005113001876_pf.html

The Washington Post editorial was aptly titled "Planted Propaganda." (12/2/05)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/01/AR2005120101520_pf.html

Careful readers of this topic will recall that Rumsfeld had to end a similar policy of planting false stories in the foreign press.  In Iraq in 2005, the military operates radio station and newspapers, but does not disclose their American ties, according to the front page Times story of Dec. 11. "The Bush administration has been conducting an information war that is extensive, costly, and often hidden." 

In the campaign, there are no limits on spending or contributions.  Parties own about 1/3 of TV stations and about half of the newspapers.  TV spots cost up to $3000/minute. 

By December, the military was admitting that it paid for the stories to be included. Sen. John Warner spoke out on the story, with a press conference.

President Bush gave a second major speech on Iraq on December 7, Pearl Harbor Day. See "US Politics" for details

Violence toward candidates continued through mid-December.  In a two-week period, 11 associated with Allawi's group were killed. Some terrorism is hard to differentiate with political violence. The former Prime Minister was attacked during a visit to Najaf.  Allawi is resented in Najaf for permitting the assault on the city as Prime Minister.  Much of the city was left in ruins. 

If the UIA stays as a bloc they will achieve over 2/3, giving them veto power in Parliament. If they alliance has defections, Allawi and Chalabi will have more bargaining power. Allawi could team up with Kurds and Sunnis if the religious Shiite alliance does not gain a majority. Other party likely to fair well are the Kurdish Alliance, estimated to gain 50 seats.  Their top two leaders, for years, have been Talabani, current President, and Massoud Barzani. The largest Sunni alliance is the Concord Party.  Leading secular Shiites are Chalabi and Allawi.

The front page Times story reported in the days before the elections that Allawi, Chalabi, and Adel Abdul Mahdi all attended the same English speaking Jesuit school in Baghdad in the late 1950s.  "The boys of Baghdad college" are all in their '60s and back from exile.

On the eve of the election, US polls showed that 63% believe Iraqis have made real progress toward democracy over the past two years.

A poll of Iraqis commissioned by the British military which found that "82% were 'strongly opposed' to the presence of coalition troops, and 67% felt less secure because of the occupation."  

Turnout predictions included more Sunnis than in January.  The lowest January turnout was Anbar at 38% and the highest was in two Kurdish regions, at 90% and 95%. 

Elections began a few days early in seven locations across the US.  Some voters to Skokie, Illinois, a northern suburb, came from as far away as Texas. Election day for a permanent government finally came on Thursday, December 15, 2005.  One will recall that there are 275 seats in Parliament, with 1/4 reserved for women.  If any party gains a majority of the votes, their leader will likely become Prime Minister.  The new Parliament will be called The Council of Representatives

How important is the December 15 election?  The front page Tribune report concludes that "it is hard to overstate the significance...for the fate of Iraq and for American hopes that the county will find enough peace in the months ahead of US troops to start returning home."

A Times editorial (12/14/05) concluded that this election could be "the only chance...to organize a unified, democratic county that can ultimately stand on its own.  That means America's stake in the vote is huge...Like it or not, the Sunnis will now have to resign themselves to significantly reduced power and privileges.  But they cannot be expected to agree willingly to the permanent pariah status that could befall them unless the current constitution is drastically revised...Those who merely joined the party to advance their career should be left alone."  Though a majority of Iraqis are Shiite they are not Shiite fundamentalists politically indebted to Iran. 

Iraq Elections FAQ is from the Washington Post.