Iraqis recognize need for change

Posted on January 22nd, 2009 Greg Trunz 1 comment  Print This Post

According to Reuters, it seems as though many Iraqis have recognized the shortcomings of sectarianism as a basis for political organization due to factors outside of institutionally-determined incentives — namely, the problem of governance and basic administration*:

“Religious parties didn’t keep their promises. They exploited our problems,” said Safaa Kadhim, a teacher in Basra, reflecting anger voiced across Iraq towards the major parties, mostly founded along sectarian lines and seen by many as corrupt and self-serving.

“The voter must be more careful this time, and vote for someone who is deserving,” Kadhim said.

Polling evidence seems to suggest that Kadhim’s sentiment is shared among the broader population:

In an opinion poll by the government’s National Media Centre in November, 68 percent of those questioned rejected the use of religious appeals in the campaign and 42 percent said they favoured secular parties, while 31 percent supported religious parties.

I do not highlight the above to undermine the importance of Jack’s most recent post, which provides a valuable and insightful institutional assessment. I agree with its premise as well as its speculations — institutions matter, and OLPR seems to represent an improvement.

However, I do wish to point out that Jack originally advocated for not just any “candidate-centric electoral system,” but for a specific type of system, SNTV, and I agreed. While SNTV is known to encourage several unsavory consequences over the long term (from highly factional parties to clientilism and political corruption), these appeared palatable in lieu of possible alternatives — whether that meant continuing down the path of CLPR and accepting the long-term institutionalization of sectarianism, or ham-handedly banning religious-based political discourse.

But institutions exist in a world of perceptions, both of which can change over time — the former through decree and the latter through learning, as the Reuters piece illustrates. Perhaps we did not sufficiently consider the speed at which this latter process could take place, particularly amidst Iraq’s dire circumstances (the school of hard knocks, it seems, provides a quick education). If we had, the middle way offered by OLPR — which appears superior to the extent that it does not encourage the same problems of SNTV, avoids some of the pitfalls of CLPR, and can actually be sustained if societal demands for sectarianism are not too overwhelming — might have been more apparent.

I am not sure of the specific ways in which this lesson could be of value in terms of broader application. Recognizing the fact that a dynamic learning process takes place as institutions illustrate their opportunities, advantages and failings over time is one thing; predicting the direction in which this learning process will progress is quite another. At the very least, it serves as a humbling yet necessary reminder that, in our efforts to change the world for the better, we often operate with limited means and in uncertain environments (even those of us as bright as Jack). So, fellow DGers of Georgetown and other future policy shapers, take note, for I imagine it is far more pleasant to gain an understanding of this reality as a student than at any other point hereafter.

*As a side note, while the so-called “surge” and the stability that it has helped bring about seems to have flown under Reuters’ radar, it seems incumbent upon me to point out that this was in many ways an even more basic determinant in leading Iraqi politics away from sectarianism. Falling back on the immediate certainties and familiarities associated with primordial bonds can become an appealing prospect in the midst of chaos, and thus it makes sense that as order is established, this tendency would taper and longer-term priorities (i.e., issues of governance and basic administration) would come to the fore.