VOL. XLVII
No 03
19
The Political Scene (19 January 2004)
In a major blow to American plans to accelerate the transfer of authority to a provisional Iraqi government, the leader of Iraq’s Shi'a majority, Ayatollah 'Ali Sistani, has hardened his insistence that elections, not consultations, are the way to do it. Yet another confrontation between conservatives and reformists in Iran has been provoked by the conservative Guardians Council’s decision to veto the candidacy of numerous reformists in the forthcoming parliamentary elections.
Sistani Again Demands Elections
It was little more than a week after the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) agreed on a plan to accelerate the transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis last November that the country’s senior Shi'a religious authority, Ayatollah 'Ali Sistani, threw a major spanner in the works by demanding that the transitional assembly which is to choose a provisional sovereign government by the end of June should be selected by elections rather than a series of regional “caucuses.” Some two weeks after that, the Ayatollah qualified his demand somewhat by adding “unless a neutral UN committee…visits Iraq and reaches the conclusion that in the current circumstances it is technically and politically impossible to hold general elections.” Now, with the UN still on the sidelines, Mr Sistani has evidently concluded for himself that elections are feasible and has returned to his demand for them with a vengeance. In a statement issued on 11 January statement after meeting with an IGC delegation, the Ayatollah warned that “if formed through a mechanism that does not have adequate legitimacy, the national provisional assembly and the government it will create will not be able to carry out the tasks demanded from them and to adhere to the timetable set for the transitional period. This will in turn give rise to new problems and the political and security situation will deteriorate. The ideal mechanism is an election, which many experts believe it is possible to hold within the next months with an acceptable level of transparency and credibility.” Moreover, and even worse from the American point of view, the Ayatollah homed in on the not-so-subtle sleight of hand at the heart of US plans for Iraq, which is the Americans’ intention to negotiate a security agreement establishing the status of coalition forces in Iraq before the end of March – ie with the American-appointed IGC rather than the sovereign provisional government which is to be formed by the end of June. According to Mr Sistani, without an elected government neither such a security agreement nor a transitional constitution (due to be drafted by the IGC by the end of next month) will be valid, since both documents “must be submitted to elected representatives of the people in order to have legitimacy.”
Faced with what is clearly a major threat to Washington’s plans for at least a notional disentanglement from Iraq before next November’s presidential elections in the US, US administrator Paul Bremer at first insisted that it was business as usual, saying on 12 January that “we have said it is important to implement the November 15 agreement …as the best way forward for the return of sovereignty to the Iraqi people.” On the same day, however, Ayatollah Sistani stated bluntly that “we want free elections and not appointments…they want to disfigure the meaning of democracy and freedom that our people enjoy.” (Under the 15 November agreement, the caucuses in each governorate which will select the transitional assembly will themselves be formed in a process “supervised” by the CPA. Interestingly enough, the definition of a caucus In Webster’s Collegiate dictionary is “a closed meeting of a group of persons belonging to the same political party or faction,” so it does not sound as if the full, rich spectrum of Iraqi political opinion will be represented.) Faced with such blunt language (and with massive pro-Sistani demonstrations in Basra), the Americans hastily backtracked, with State Department spokesman Adam Ereli explaining on 13 January that “there is a discussion on how exactly the assembly would be selected. We are engaged with different parties in Iraq in those discussions. There can be discussions with different parties in Iraq about the modalities or the technicalities…of how caucuses are conducted” One unnamed US official in Washington was even quoted as suggesting that elections could be held in secure parts of the country, saying “it’s not doable across the country, but elections could be workable in some parts.” But it is very much open to question whether that would be enough to mollify the Ayatollah, who appears to have decided that he will settle for nothing less than full elections. Indeed, one of his aides, Ayatollah Baqir al-Muhri, told Reuters on 15 January that “the imam insists on his opinion that general and comprehensive elections should be conducted in all regions of Iraq.” Mr Muhri pointed out, correctly, that “up to now the religious authority has prevented people from any tension or confrontation with coalition forces,” but he also warned (on Abu Dhabi TV on the same day) that “if Bremer rejects…Ayatollah Sistani’s opinion, he would issue a fatwa depriving the US-appointed council of its legitimacy.” Fortunately for the Americans, it does not appear that the Ayatollah is about to take such a drastic step at the moment. But were he to do so, it would be a fatal blow to the IGC and the 15 November agreement, and in all likelihood a major setback for Mr Bush’s reelection campaign as well.
Another Confrontation In Iran
Simmering tensions between Iranian conservatives and reformist supporters of President Mohammad Khatami were brought abruptly to the boil by the 11 January decision of the conservative-dominated Guardians Council - which checks legislation and candidates for public office for compatibility with Islam and the constitution – to disqualify some 3,600 of the 8,157 candidates registered for 20 February parliamentary elections, including 83 of the 210 reformist members of the current 290-seat Majlis (parliament). The move, likened by one reformist deputy to a “coup d’ etat,” also brought an unusually sharp reaction from Mr Khatami himself, who said on 13 January that “what has been done in the rejection of candidacies is not acceptable” and that “when it comes to the elections and defending people’s rights, the president is firm and will not forget his oath. Unfortunately the current parliament is the subject of unjust attacks.” Mr Khatami also suggested he might join the 12 ministers and four vice presidents who threatened to resign within a week unless the Council’s decision was reversed, saying “we have to remain firm. If one day we are asked to leave, then we will all leave, together.” In the face of this uproar, the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, at first refused to intervene, saying on 12 January that “at this stage, there are legal channels and everyone should abide by the law. If things pass the legal stages…and get to a point where it becomes sensitive and requires a decision, I will intervene.” Evidently things quickly became sensitive, as two days later the Ayatollah suggested that “the Guardians Council has a good opportunity to review the cases with precision and conforming with the law,” adding that “together with negative points, positive points should also be taken into account” and that as far as sitting MPs are concerned, “if their aptitude was proved in the past, the principle is that they are still competent unless it can be proved otherwise.” At MEES press time on 16 January, however, there was no sign that the Guardians Council was about to reconsider its decision or that the latest stand-off between conservatives and reformists would be resolved amicably.
Charles Snow