Progress In Iraq

The last time we were here, the Parliament passed a de-Baathification law that the Presidency Council refused to sign because it would have put a target on the backs of ex-Baathists. So I'm going to have to wait and see what comes of this, especially because there appear to be little catches to everything and nobody has actually read the bills:

BAGHDAD — Iraq’s parliamentary leaders on Wednesday pushed through three far-reaching measures that had been delayed for weeks by bitter political maneuvering that became so acrimonious that some lawmakers threatened to try to dissolve the legislative body.

In a classic legislative compromise, the three measures, each of which was a burning issue for at least one faction, were packaged together for a single vote to encourage agreement across sectarian lines.

“Today we have a wedding party for the Iraqi Parliament,” said Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, the speaker, who is a Sunni. “We have proved that Iraqis are one bloc and Parliament is able to find solutions that represent all Iraqis.”

But the parliamentary success was clouded because many of the most contentious details were simply postponed, raising the possibility that the accord could again break into rancorous factional disputes in future debates on the same issues.

The three measures are the 2008 budget; a law outlining the scope of provincial powers, a crucial aspect of Iraq’s self-definition as a federal state; and an amnesty that would apply to thousands of the detainees held in Iraqi jails.

It was unconstitutional for the Iraqi Parliament to bundle the laws in this way, but hey, whatever gets you through the night.

Juan Cole has some insight into the deals:

The budget that the parliament sort of passed, on its sixth try, awarded the Kurdistan Regional Government 17% of the $40 billion central government budget, with the proviso that this proportion be revisited in 2009 after a census, to be completed by the end of December, 2008. (Many Arab delegates do not believe the Kurds constitute so large a proportion of the total population of Iraq).

The law of the provinces bestows special prerogatives on them that al-Hayat does not specify. McClatchy says it also sets Oct. 1 as the date for provincial elections.

The setting of a date for provincial elections is extremely important. I have argued that elections in the Sunni Arab-dominated provinces are a necessity for calming Iraq. Diyala, for instance, is 60% Sunni Arab but is ruled by the pro-Iranian Shiite party, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. The Sunni Arabs largely boycotted the provincial elections of January, 2005 (the turnout in al-Anbar was 2%). Thus, virtually none of the governments in the center-north and west of the country has much real legitimacy. It will be easier for the US to turn over security duties to elected provincial authorities who have the backing of significant numbers of Sunni Arabs, and so the elections could pave the way to a US drawdown in those provinces.

One reason that the provincial elections have been delayed is that there are fears in Baghdad that the Sadr Movement of Muqtada al-Sadr will sweep to power in the Shiite south. It from all accounts has gained in popularity as the current dominant provincial party there, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, has become much less popular. (ISCI has been trying to run many of the southern Shiite provinces, but has not been able to provide security and services at the level desired by local people). Presumably one reason for bundling the law of the provinces with the amnesty law was to make Sadrist MPs vote for the package. They did not want to grant amnesty to Sunni Arab prisoners, but only by supporting this step could they get a date certain for provincial elections, which they think they will largely win.

Sounds like the provincial elections are a Catch-22 and could lead to an explosion of violence. Yet this has to be what passes for progress in Iraq nowadays.