Iraq Vote’s Real Winner: Chaos

An Iraqi police officer shows the inkstains on his fingers, proof that he has voted in Iraq's March 7 election. | <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/soldiersmediacenter/4408951370/">US Army</a>

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


After a tense few weeks of ballot-counting and political posturing, the results of Iraq’s parliamentary elections were released Friday, and the country’s political future looks as murky as ever, with no party coming close to a majority of the body’s 325 seats. And with the status of US troops hanging in the balance, it looks as if an Iran-friendly firebrand cleric—and antagonizer of America—will play the role of kingmaker.

A few minor players got boosted to the big leagues in the Iraqi vote, held March 7. The biggest winner was the secular Shiite party of former Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, whose faction gained 91 seats. That was just two more than the number retained by current Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki and his Shiite Dawa party, which means Maliki’s likely to lose his job. (As our own Kevin Drum pointed out yesterday, his coalition had already been preparing to throw him under the bus.) He’s not giving up without a fight, though, announcing his intentions to pull a Norm Coleman. “No way we will accept the results,” he told the New York Times. “These are preliminary results. We will challenge the results through the law and courts.”

Besides the electorate’s apparent rebuke to Maliki, a number of interesting story lines arose out of the election—whose turnout of about 60 percent is the highest ever recorded in post-Saddam balloting:

First is the turnout itself, which may suggest that Iraqis are less afraid of random violence than in previous elections in 2005 or 2009; it could also indicate that the populace has a stronger faith in its political institutions. Or it could mean that voter mobilization campaigns are starting to really take off among the country’s political factions. Kurdish parties from the oil-rich north picked up 43 seats, and partisans of the Iraqi National Alliance, led by radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, gained 70 seats. All were likely helped by lower turnout among the nation’s minority Sunni community, which had been disillusioned by the banning of many of its candidates—fairly or unfairly—as holdovers from Saddam Hussein’s Ba’athist Party.

At current, the man of the hour is Allawi, an enigmatic figure who has benefited in the past from big US support (and also been derided as an American puppet—though, to be fair, he criticized the US troop surge in Iraq, kinda sorta). But as regional expert Juan Cole notes in his blog, the real winner could end up being the firebrand Sadr. The often-militant cleric has vacillated between fighting US and Iraqi forces with his Madhi army, on one hand, and working within the political process on the other. Cole says Sadr still has it out for Maliki, too, thanks to the 2008 Battle of Basra—in which Maliki called Sadr’s bluff and launched an all-out (US-assisted) siege on the Mahdi army—a move that’s widely praised now for having chastened the insurgency and given the Iraqi government and military greater legitimacy. Before the election results were released, Sadr’s alliance had already announced it was ready to entertain offers from challengers to form a ruling coalition, which means 1) he’s much in demand, and 2) Maliki should start lining up his new career plans.

But with so many different factions gaining seats at the parliamentary table, whatever coalition emerges is likely to be weaker than Maliki’s was. And that means more gridlock in Baghdad—on reconciliation, on oil contracts, jobs and infrastructure—and on the levels of US troops, 50,000 of which are expected to remain after American combat forces complete their withdrawal in August.

Worse still is what a strengthened Sadr might mean for the region and US foreign policy in the long term. Says Cole: “He is a supporter of Iran, Hizbullah and Hamas, and once called himself the right hand of Hamas. If he becomes a kingmaker, the Middle East will lurch to the Right.”

Mind you, that was based on Cole’s prediction that the Sadr faction “may get as many as 40 seats”…30 fewer than their gains yesterday.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate