Assignment 1

Pakistan and Geo Political Studies

News Review

Name: Maryam Rameen Khalid

Class: BBA-7B
Enrolment: 01-111182-234

The underappreciated success of Iraqi democracy

This article was published in The Washington post written by Fareed Zakaria. It describes the
aftermath of the elections in Iraq. After the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, the country erupted into
chaos and civil war. Eighteen years after this, elections have become a routine and Fareed writes
that the recent elections were mostly free and fair. Supposing that a government is formed it will
be the sixth time a peaceful transfer of power occurs since 2004.
Even though the turnout was very low but it still contributes as real change. An Iraqi official
called this election as a political earthquake and considered it as a win for the state and a loss for
the militia. Another surprising facet regarding this election was that there was an increase in the
participation of Sunnis. Being a minority group they were not usually optimistic in regards to
elections but now if unified they can gain more political power than what they have had since
2003. The winner in the elections, a radical cleric who has now changed into a political player is
Moqtada al-Sadr. Fareed mentions that Sadr managed to win the election through a clever
communication strategy i.e. creating an app that tells when and where to vote. The writer further
discusses that despite a huge Iranian influence in the country the pro-Iranian parties did not do
particularly well.
The factors behind this success as mentioned by the Iraqi official cited in the article were
• Vigorous efforts were made to ensure that all groups were included in the political system.
• The struggle against the Islamic state unified Iraq as a nation.
Despite of this success they realize that the democracy is still vulnerable to corruption. The
urgent challenge for them is that the parties that lost the election do not use violent or
unconstitutional measures.
The articles displays the outcome as well as the futuristic political lessons erupting due to this
Iraqi political earthquake. This can provide a window of vision for all the political analysts of the
world screening the global scenarios.

Word Count 342

Just weeks after the tragic fall of Afghanistan, something important has happened in the other
country in which the United States conducted a great nation-building experiment over the past
two decades: Iraq held elections, which were mostly free and fair. Assuming this process leads to
the formation of a new government, it will be the sixth peaceful transfer of power since 2004.
Although turnout was at a record low, this election marks real progress. A senior Iraqi official
described it to me as “a political earthquake.”
Eighteen years after the United States’ invasion, which ushered in an era of chaos, civil war and
the rise of the Islamic State, Iraq’s democratic system has endured. Elections have become
routine. Political parties compete and horse-trade. There is even a degree of pluralistic media and
an increasingly assertive judiciary (not quite free and independent by Western standards, but one
that is showing some progress). The independent electoral commission, for example, which is
composed of judges, has been remarkably impartial and effective.
The senior Iraqi official described the results as a political earthquake because he characterized
them as “a defeat for militias and a victory for the Iraqi state.” After Iraq’s army melted away in
the wake of the 2003 U.S. invasion, political power brokers and parties created their own armed
militias. Over time, the Shiite militias grew in strength — especially when they were called upon
to fight the Islamic State — and became a kind of parallel state of their own. Many had close ties
to Iran. But in this election, by one count, parties with militias went from 45 seats to fewer than
20.
The second, seismic aspect of the election has been the rise of Sunni participation. Sunnis, a
minority group in Iraq, have been the most disaffected group within the political system. They
have tended to be cynical about voting, and they remain disgruntled; in the past, they have on
occasion fueled insurgencies against the state. But this time, they voted, managing to concentrate
their votes in a few parties. Al-Monitor estimates that if a few of these leaders can band together,
a unified Sunni bloc would have 50 seats in Iraq’s 329-seat parliament, which would give it
greater political power than it has had since 2003.
The big winner of the elections is Moqtada al-Sadr, the fiery anti-American radical cleric, whose
militia battled U.S. troops in the past. Now, however, Sadr has transformed himself into a
political player who works within the Iraqi system. His rise to power could now force him to
disband some of his militias and support the state more strongly.
There are signs he will do just that. Interestingly, Sadr succeeded in this election through old-
fashioned grass-roots organizing and a smart communications strategy. His party used new
election laws effectively and created an app that told its supporters where and when to vote, thus
efficiently distributing votes to gain maximum representation. Sadr has come a long way from
his days as a violent revolutionary and is gradually assuming a role as a canny party boss.
The third takeaway from the election is that, despite Iranian religious, political and military
influence in Iraq, pro-Iranian parties did not fare well. The senior Iraqi official said, “Whatever
else one might say about Moqtada al-Sadr, he is clearly an Iraqi nationalist who does not like any
foreign interference — from any side — in the country.”
I asked the official what explains Iraq’s relative success (and he is the first to acknowledge it is a
relative and tentative success). He pointed to two large factors: First, after the fiasco of the
United States’ early policies in Iraq, strenuous efforts were made to incorporate all groups into
the political system. “One of the unheralded successes of the surge, led by that great odd couple,
David Petraeus and Ray Odierno, was to bring many of the Sunni militias back into the fold,” he
said. That political outreach was in marked contrast to policy in Afghanistan, which from the
start ruled out any Taliban participation in the political system.
The second, the Iraqi official said, was the battle against the Islamic State. “That struggle really
brought the country together,” he said. “Iraq has always had a sense of being a nation and a
polity, but this deepened that identity, and when we prevailed gave us all pride in that
achievement.”
The senior official cautions that Iraq’s democracy remains fragile. Corruption is undermining the
legitimacy of the state and political system. For now, he said, the urgent challenge is that “the
losers in this election have to accept their loss and not resort to violence or extraconstitutional
means.” Yet he sees encouraging signs: “We Iraqis have learned that we have no alternative but
to handle our differences through politics, to trust in elections, and above all to compromise,
compromise, compromise.”
The losers should accept their loss and all parties must compromise. Who could have imagined a
decade ago that Iraqi politics might provide some useful lessons for U.S. democracy?