By Raaj Alaaldin
The new law paving the way for national elections, including participation in Kirkuk, is welcome - but don't call it a milestone
Yesterday Iraqi parliamentarians finally voted on and passed the much-debated new election law that paves the way for national elections to be held in January.
The passing of the new law comes at a critical point for Iraq. The country is slowly recovering from the terrorist attacks that killed at least 200 and wounded hundreds more a couple of weeks back in Baghdad. Further delays to the new law coming into force would have led to the postponement of the elections beyond January, since the Iraqi electoral commission needs three months to organise the elections - beyond the Iraqi parliament's constitutionally mandated term, which expires after January.
This would have handed a decisive victory to the terrorists. Their objectives still include derailing the elections, inflaming political instability and sparking ethno-sectarian violence - having an Iraqi parliament operate in a constitutional vacuum would almost certainly have created an environment conducive to this agenda. That the elections will go ahead under the new law is also important because it implements the popular open-list voting system, which puts constituent before party and replaces party patronage with democratic accountability.
For the first time since 2005, elections will be held in Kirkuk just like in any other governorate, a victory for the Kurds who vehemently fought against giving the governorate any special status. There will therefore be no guaranteed seats for Arabs and Turkomen. Although the votes could be subject to a special review if it is determined that there was more than a 5% increase in the voter register from 2004 to 2009 (non-Kurds contend the demographic makeup of the area has been altered), the Kurds managed to win the right to have the same arrangement for other governorates deemed to have been subjected to demographic alterations.
President Obama may hail the new law and the elections as an important "milestone" but it is important to maintain perspective, and history should teach him to use the word warily. The Iraqi parliament still remains incapable of solving the main issues despite the countless milestones we have had in the past, and even in this instance it took pressure from external forces including the Americans, British and Turks before the election law was passed. America's scheduled withdrawal is therefore by no means a certainty.
Furthermore, it is difficult to dismiss the problems the "special review" mechanism might bring about in a place as sensitive and hotly disputed as Kirkuk, which could have its future status influenced to some degree by the outcome of the elections. The Kirkuk issue continues to be recklessly kicked down the road only for it to later explode into a violent and irreparable conflict.
For now, what is important is that the vote will go ahead with the full support and confidence of the vast majority of Iraqis and sets the stage for what promises to be a tantalising democratic affair that for once may pit truly cross-sectarian alliances against one another.
