| Submit your comments on this article | |||
| Iraq | |||
| Council In Iraq Supports US Plan over Sistani’s Demands | |||
| 2003-12-02 | |||
| A majority of Iraq’s U.S.-appointed Governing Council has decided to support an American plan to select a provisional government through regional caucuses despite objections from the country’s most powerful Shiite Muslim cleric, according to several council members. This is a big deal, if it can hold. A tiered system of elections is an important counterbalance to any tyranny of the majority, allowing representation of ethnic and religious groups. The council’s stance, the result of intense lobbying over the past few days by the U.S. administrator of Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, could result in a dramatic showdown with Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who has insisted that a provisional government be chosen through a national election. If the council persists in supporting the American plan, many in Iraq’s Shiite majority, who regard the grand ayatollah as their supreme spiritual authority, may reject the provisional government as illegitimate. Bremer has a tough job but is doing well at this part of it. If he can pull this off, it will go a long way to making Iraq a stable success. "We are facing a very tense situation, perhaps the most tense since the end of the war," one of the council’s Shiite members said. "None of us want a confrontation, but we have to realize we are traveling down a road that could lead to a very big confrontation." Council members and officials with the U.S.-led occupation authority said they remained hopeful that Sistani’s objections could be overcome with minor revisions to the plan and a more detailed explanation to him of the new transition process, which was crafted in part to address his earlier concerns about how a constitution should be written.
That’s as good a public excuse as any .. but from the US point of view, there are larger issues at stake, namely setting up a system that is representative while avoiding some of the potential instability of direct democracy in a country without historic experience and shared values needed to make that work. "It will be impossible to have elections under the current circumstances," said Ghazi Yawar, a Sunni Muslim who represents one of the country’s largest tribes on the council. "We all respect the point of view of Ayatollah Sistani, but there is a difference between what you wish for and what you can have." Even the country’s largest Shiite political party, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, has sought to distance itself from Sistani’s insistence on elections. Good. "When we say ’Iraqis choose’ or ’Iraqis elect,’ this can take many meanings," said Adel Abdel-Mehdi, director of the party’s political bureau. "There is no one way to do that." The decision to stick with the U.S. plan was made informally among a majority of the council’s 24 members after intense discussions over the weekend and on Monday. They said some Shiite members remained undecided because they were waiting for a clearer statement from Abdel-Mehdi’s party, which has voiced reservations about the caucuses. The initial moves of the council have pleased the Bush administration, which regards caucuses as the best — and speediest — way to select a provisional government. U.S. officials had worried that a call for elections by the council would have scuttled the transition plan, making it harder for President Bush to declare an end to the civil occupation before next year’s presidential election. "We’re encouraged by the Governing Council’s focus on implementing the agreement," a senior U.S. official in Baghdad said. The council’s apparent steadfastness stems from a desire among Sunni Arabs, Sunni Kurds and secular Shiites that an ayatollah not be given veto power over political decisions. "We cannot deny there is an attempt to set a precedent on Sistani’s side and our side," one member said. "This is more than about elections. It’s about whether we will allow one man to dictate the terms of our sovereignty." yup The member said that "the most powerful political forces on the council" did not want such a result and had decided among themselves yes! to confront the issue of religion in politics — a thorny subject that was to be deferred until the drafting of a new constitution. "The big parties don’t want to cross Sistani, but they want to make sure we don’t have a system in place where the religious men have the final say."
Bremer had originally wanted a constitution to be drafted — either by appointees or people selected through caucuses — before sovereignty was transferred. But his plan was foiled by Sistani, who issued a religious edict over the summer calling for the drafters to be elected. Although Bremer wanted to push forward with his arrangement, council members refused to support it out of fear of crossing Sistani. Worried that the council might quake again in light of Sistani’s most recent pronouncement about elections for the provisional government, Bremer and his staff hit the phones over the weekend and urged members to stay their course. "They were nervous," one source close to the council said of Bremer’s team. "They went into high gear." Some council members responded with political maneuvering of their own. Hoping to win a few concessions from the occupation authority for standing firm, they have renewed efforts to keep the council in existence after June 30, perhaps as a second legislative body or as a "sovereignty council" that would monitor the transfer of power. Founding Fathers & Mothers ... U.S. officials have opposed keeping the council around after a provisional government is formed because of concern that the two bodies might squabble and that the entire process could lose legitimacy if an American-appointed council continued to hold power. But several council members, particularly those who do not lead large political parties, are concerned about their ability to be selected through the caucuses. Some of them now want Bremer to guarantee members a role in the provisional government in exchange for their support of the caucuses.
Council leaders say they believe revamping the local councils or diminishing their role could affect Sistani’s position. "He is concerned about the local councils," said a Shiite politician who recently met with Sistani. "If we could reform them, maybe even by holding some local elections, it might satisfy him." To that end, the Governing Council set up a committee on Sunday intended to suggest ways to revise the selection process. U.S. officials said Bremer would be willing to consider minor modifications but that he remained opposed to giving the Governing Council a dominant role in choosing participants. While the council attempts to make changes acceptable to both Bremer and Sistani, the occupation authority is wasting no time trying to sell the agreement directly to the Iraqi public in an attempt to win over the grand ayatollah’s supporters. A nationwide "information operations" campaign slated to begin in the next few days will tout the new plan as good for Iraqis. | |||
| Posted by:rkb |
| #2 Anybody know if it's true that the Council members are away a lot of the time? A few have been out doing the diplomatic thing with the UN & some arab states. Wonder what else, if anything, is going on? |
| Posted by: rkb 2003-12-2 6:27:09 PM |
| #1 I hope that Bremmer stands firm on this. From the Iraqi blogs I've been reading, most notably Healing Iraq, the average Iraqi feels that the Governing Council is not only using their positions to line their pockets but also that many of them aren't there in Iraq most of the time. |
| Posted by: rabidfox 2003-12-2 2:09:20 PM |