Observations on Provincial Council Elections in Mosul – 1

Observations on Provincial Council Elections in Mosul – 1
Bilgay Duman, ORSAM Middle East Specialist

The provincial council elections, which had been planned to be held in Arbil, Sulaymaniyah and Duhok within Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) and in other 14 cities of Iraq in addition to Kirkuk on 20 April 2013, were held only in 12 cities; and the provincial council elections in Mosul and al-Anbar were postponed on the ground that there were security threats and lack of electoral preparations due to anti-government protests. The provincial council elections in Mosul and al-Anbar, announced to be held on 4 July 2013, were designated to be held on 20 June 2013. The Independent High Electoral Commission in Iraq (IHEC) invited 6 electoral watchdog from Turkey to Mosul to serve as international electoral watchdog in Mosul during the elections. In this article, Bilgay Duman from ORSAM shares his observations on provincial council held in Mosul. Since the article was written during the election in Mosul, it contains first observations. The election results and observations regarding the whole electoral process will be written in another article.

The lessons of local elections in Iraq

Abdul Ilah Albayaty,
February 2009

http://brusselstribunal.org/

US foreign policy experts suggested to the Bush administration that the only way to defend American interests in Iraq was by replacing current rejected figures of the political process with new figures that appear independent of the United States. We must recognise that Americans have partially succeeded in this by leaving Maliki without opposition, and obstacles, adopting slogans of the Iraqi resistance movement on the national unity of Iraq.

Maliki has proven to the Americans that he is, by his sectarian nature, more capable than Allawi in pursuing the interests of Iran/US: he saw no contradiction between WALYAT AL-FAQIH — the rule of clerics — that he long used as cover, and close cooperation with the United States. In not wearing the religious turban he can provide loyalty to Iran without creating competition with Al-Sistani and Khamenei, and can also touch the sectarian feelings of Iran while serving the interests of the United States. His signing of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the US is proof.

The United States and their advisers in Iraq — Americans, Israelis or Iraqis — are happy about this situation because what interests them is how to control Iraq after the failed policies of Bush. What matters most to them aren’t the persons, or the support of Iraqis, but world opinion, the image of America, and guaranteeing US imperial interests.

Two trends are involved in improving the image of the United States. The first presents the Iraqi resistance as a barbaric movement concerned only with blood, murder and persecution, and that has nothing to do with the liberation of Iraq. Al-Qaeda and its like and Zionist and imperialist propaganda serve this tendency. The second trend suggests that cooperation could be established between the US and the Iraqi people under occupation or semi-occupation. The most important participants in this trend are Allawi, the Communist Party, Kurdish leaders and the Shia and Sunni parties.

All political analysts know that the American project of cooperation between the US and Israel to encourage the dreams of imperial Iran to tear the region apart and realise the “New Middle East” has failed. One reason for this failure is the exaggeration of the abilities and ambitions of the Iranians and Kurds. These ambitions have not only awakened Iraqi patriotism, but also Iraqi national and Arab solidarity. This has emerged as evident in recent days during the local elections. Their results will not change much, especially since they were conducted under the brutal US occupation, with the US-drafted constitution that threatens the unity of Iraq and under the sectarian quota system, heinous in its composition and terms of reference. Iraq with these elections does not change and remains an occupied country. The only thing noteworthy of these elections is that they reflect the balance of forces and trends at the moment.

The Iraqi resistance boycotted the local elections. It has been very successful in the boycott, but at the same time it decided not to disrupt the elections to let the parties in the political process settle accounts between themselves and allow the forces that think they can somewhat improve the situation in some provinces through the elections perform their task. This tactic was a success:

- The Iraqi resistance has proven that it is not against the use of polls, but boycotts the elections because they take place under occupation and it is the occupation that controls the election results.
- The Iraqi resistance has proven that Iraqi patriots would win every election if they were free and fair, because patriotism is stronger than sectarianism and chauvinism. The proof is the adoption by the majority of candidates of the slogan of the resistance: “Sunni or Shia, we will not sell this country.”
- The Iraqi resistance has demonstrated that resistance is not only a military action but also the political mobilisation of the masses in the various forms of support for armed action and the process of the liberation of Iraq, including the movement of the defence of the rights of individuals or groups of the population, and participation in the popular political struggle in its various forms.

The vote for Al-Hadaba list in Mosul and for Al-Haboub in Karbala put an end to what remained of the attempted US-Israeli-Iranian project of promoting Sunni and Shia sectarianism, Kurdish chauvinism and the communist liberals’ complicity with them. For fear of the victory of the national movement, the pro-occupation movement wanted to reduce the value of this victory by saying that they are former Baathists. So be it. The Baathists, the Nasserists, leftists and Islamists are the best sons of Iraq if they are the defenders of Iraqi patriotism, anywhere they are.

The summary of the election is as follows: the US has managed to scrap their allies, which became cumbersome, for Maliki’s profit. Elections are cut to his measure. But the resistance with its wise tactic has proven that the national movement is the one that will decide the future of Iraq in order that the Iraqi people is sovereign on its territory and over its wealth. Will America recognise this obvious fact or will it continue to hide its head in the sand, leaving its army and its puppets mired in their crimes against Iraq?

Iraq deal over province elections

Parliament has now set a deadline of 31 January 2009 for elections to be held in 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces.

However, that excludes KERKUK and three other Kurdish provinces, which will hold elections at a later date, reports say.
....

The Iraqi parliament has passed a law which paves the way for provincial elections, after months of wrangling.

The decision brings to an end months of debate over how the law would be applied to the oil-rich city of Kirkuk.

As a compromise, parliament has agreed to deal separately with the issue of Kirkuk, so that elections can go ahead in other parts of the country.

Agreement over the drafting of the laws has been seen as a key part of political reform in Iraq.

One member of parliament told the BBC the agreement was a sign of national reconciliation.

The law must now go before the country's three-man presidency council, headed by President Jalal Talabani.

The head of the Iraqi parliament's legal committee, Bahaa al-Araji, told reporters that a compromise deal had been reached on Kirkuk.

"We tell our brothers in the south, the centre of Iraq and Kurdistan that this is an achievement by parliament," he said.

"The elections will be soon, so the people of Iraq can put forward their votes to select new local government."

Correspondents say provincial elections are part of an American-backed plan to reconcile rival groups, particularly the Sunnis, who boycotted the last round of provincial elections in 2005.

Disputed city


Control of Kirkuk is disputed between Iraqi Arabs, Kurds and ethnic Turkmen, and disagreements over how to treat the city held up debate in parliament.
Iraqi Kurds believe they should control the city, which has a Kurdish majority but which lies outside their semi-autonomous northern enclave.

They believe any deal should reflect what they say was the "artificial Arabisation" of the city under Saddam Hussein.

But Kirkuk's ethnic Arabs and Turkmen say it should be under the control of the central government.

Parliament adopted a draft provincial election law in July, despite a boycott by Kurdish and some Shia Muslim MPs, but it was rejected by the presidential council.

Deep apathy

Polls had been scheduled for October this year, but were cancelled after MPs failed to reach an agreement.

Mahmoud Mashhadani, speaker of the Iraqi parliament, said the new deal was "what the Iraqi people want" and had been "written for them by the Iraqi politicians".

Parliament has now set a deadline of 31 January 2009 for elections to be held in 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces.

However, that excludes Kirkuk and three other Kurdish provinces, which will hold elections at a later date, reports say.

The BBC's Hugh Sykes, in Baghdad, says that the low level of registration on the electoral roll prior to the earlier cancelled polls suggests a deep level of apathy among voters.

Many people wonder what the point is of turning out to vote when they still have to endure limited electricity supplies, high unemployment and poor facilities, says our correspondent.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/7633557.stm

Published: 2008/09/24