Skip to main content

Blondel's Prophecy and Iraq


Jean Blondel went into details in Political Parties – The Decline of Parties in Europe – about the perils of patronage in particracies. The exchange of favours and appointments in governmental bodies owing to party calculations and favour exchanges has proven ineffective and non-transparent, whether in majoritarian systems or those of a consensual nature. The mistakes committed by parties in continental Europe throughout the past century have been taken account of, with the hope that as party life develops and new organisational structures emerge, citizens can be spared the inefficiency of their elected governments.

What is being exported into the new member countries of the democratic club seems to miss out on these lessons. Theory trumps practicality and experience in the process of introducing democratic systems of governance in these countries. Iraq stands testimony to this very observation.

Iraq was ruled for very long years by an Arab-nationalist party that employed European-inspired rhetoric of socialism and nationalism. Parties of other ideological families also played a role in the political landscape – such as the Communist party, which have also been an offshoot of European parties established in the 1950s, or at least an offshoot of their intellectual school. When the USA liberated Iraq from years long of dictatorship in 2003, a new formula of party collaboration and political organisation was introduced.

Iraq was viewed as a nation of cleavages, and consequently, the system was organised in a similar fashion. It was agreed that the presidency was to be headed by a Kurdish leader, the Parliament by a Sunni leader, and the government by a Shiite leader. Parties were organised along the same cleavage lines, and so were the votes of the electorate. Most importantly, parties of the same ideological family – that of religious or ethnic affiliation – started to exchange favours under a patronage-supportive system.

Elections in Iraq in May 2018 envisaged drama. The prophecy was fulfilled. It took party factions and elected members over 4 months to select a prime minister. Lengthier time is expected when it comes to forming the government. The Blondel–feared party patronage prophecy took place. Parties started forming coalitions across cleavage-lines in hope of forming a majority and consequently form a government. Moqtada al-Sadr and Haider al-Abadi created an alliance that includes the blocs of Vice President Ayad Allawi and Shi’ite Muslim cleric Ammar al-Hakim, as well as several Sunni Muslim lawmakers and ones representing Turkmen, Yazidi, Mandaean and Christian minorities. A rival grouping led by militia commander Hadi al-Ameri and former Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki formed another alliance. Bickering commenced, and so did implied favours and compromises on the hot files (Iran, Kurds, US relations to name a few).



In a surprising turn of events, Iraq’s new president tasked veteran Shiite politician Adel Abdul-Mahdi with forming a new government. Neutrality and independence will not facilitate the setting up of a government. Months after the country elected its new parliament the country is as divided and ungovernable as ever – and it is all attributed to a system that naively believed in consensual politics in an ethnically and religiously divided nation. The exchange of favours and the agreement of parties on their share of the pie will only entrench further factionalism and favouritism based on party affiliation, AKA in Iraq "religious affiliation". The new premier however astonished everyone by announcing that the public can apply for a ministerial post by sending an electronic application. He reportedly declined nominations by parties that were masked by independent slogans. Is that the end of patronage?



Whether this is a political stunt or an actual change in the modus operandi of Iraq politics remains to be seen. Blondel's prophecies might not find ground in the Iraqi government, or so one hopes.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Just as Orwell Said

         George Orwell said in his famous book 1984 that “first they steal the words, then they steal the meaning”, accurately foreseeing the political actions of world leaders and their manipulation of public opinion. His words are ever so precise once one examines the vocabulary applied by a number of world leaders when describing the policies and regimes of troubling countries: axis of evil, war on terror, terrorist killers, harbourers of fundamentalism etc. Ironic it is to see how those who were once described to have been allies with Satan himself seem to show good will in a matter of very few years. Iran is one very good example of this. The Persian nation has come out as a winner in the Geneva talks that were held in October, where not only did it get applauded for the concessions it offered, but it also ensured the west’s acceptance of its regional weight. Everyone seems to be more relaxed after the negotiations and a new round of talks has been set for November.  

Pan-Arabism vs. Middle Easternism?

             A rab Nationalism, a romantic concept that moved poets to write ballads, intellectuals to preach volumes, activists to passionately organize and the masses to cheer freedom. A concept introduced by students at the American University of Beirut in the last phases of the ageing Ottoman Empire and studied in secret societies. This concept developed and led, under western planning, to the Great Arab Revolt in 1916. The slogans of Arab revival and freedom from Ottoman tyranny swept the Arab nations, where hopes of independence and self-rule were promised by the restoration of Arab control over the area. Then problems arose. Who are Arabs? What is an Aran nation? How does it extend geographically? Is it an area that encompasses people who speak the same language and share the same history? If so, why did the Lebanese Maronites reject the concept of Arab nationalism and insist on a Lebanese identity? Why did the Egyptians hesitate before including themselves under th

Wishing You a New MENA

Journalist and author of A nd Then All Hell Broke Loose: Two Decades in the Middle East   said that “Everything changed with the First World War. The Middle East was reorganized, redefined, and the seeds were planted for a century of bloodshed.” He was not entirely right. Bloodshed lasted more than a century actually. Here we are in 2019, and the Middle East and North Africa region – the infamous MENA – is still a boisterous, rowdy zone of political recrimination, military coups, conspiracy theories, historic reminiscence, oil squabbles, and religiously-infused rhetoric. Blood shed of course as well. Well, here we are.  Algeria is set to head to the polls in April. President Abdelaziz Bouteflika will likely secure a fifth mandate. If not, Algeria’s powerbrokers, mainly the military and powerful business elites will enter into an expensive bargain of security versus social and economic stability. Having vested the long-enjoyed tranquillity on a political figure, rather than a