|
|
|
News Analysis
By
Yasser Alaskary
September 8, 2004
-
After the Najaf standoff, many analysts and politicians have
been left wondering what Sayyid Sistani's resolution
to the conflict means for Iraq's political future? While
many agree the intervention was positive and necessary,
some analysts are alarmed by the involvement of a religious
authority in a political matter and are uncomfortable
with the apparent blurring of the line between mosque
and state.
Sistani has entered the
political debate before when in June 29 last year he issued a fatwa which proclaimed
that Iraq’s National Assembly which will draft the country’s
permanent constitution must be selected through general
elections. While Sistani has repeatedly declared he
does not want a political role he has continually stressed
that “the people” must be the final arbiters for Iraq’s
political system.
Iraq must decide what form
of secularism it wishes to adopt. If separation between
religion and politics is sought – i.e. where men and
women of religious authority are not permitted to work
within the political arena and religious political parties
are banned – then Sistani’s actions are clearly a breech
of this. However, if secularism is to mean a separation
of religion and state, where religious personalities
and religion-based political parties are allowed to
operate in the political arena as long as they are confined
to the same limits as every other politician and political
party, then Sistani’s actions are not anti-secular.
Such an arrangement is clearly different to what is
practiced in countries such as Iran where unelected
religious authorities have powers over and above those
of elected officials. In fact, it can be argued that
Sistani’s fatwa last year was in essence a secular assertion
that established "the people" as the ultimate authority
within Iraq's political system.
-
The towns and villages
just south of Baghdad have in recent months become strongholds
for Wahabi extremists. Two French hostages were kidnapped here, the Minister for
Religious Endowment, Hussein al-Shami, and INC leader, Ahmed Chalabi, both escaped assassination attempts
within the same week. A senior aide of Muqtada al-Sadr was also assassinated there
as he was returning to his home in Baghdad. In May 2004,
Salama al-Khufaji, who was a member of the Iraqi Governing
Council, survived an assassination attempt that claimed
the life of her teenage son in the same area. Wahabi
terrorists are emerging as possibly the greatest threat
to Iraqi security and democracy. Their disregard for
human life is evident from their actions around the
world as Wahabi ideology is the basis of groups such
as al-Qaeda and the hostage takers in Russia. The fact
that their sworn enemies are Shia Muslims, which constitute
over 60% of Iraq’s population, makes this an incredibly
dangerous cocktail that must be overcome if stability
is to be established.
-
Leading up to the Republican
Party convention, President Bush was being urged by
some in his party to shift the focus away from Iraq. With the constant barrage
of negative news coming out of Iraq, many who supported
the ouster of Saddam Hussein are losing hope of seeing
a stable, democratic Iraq and are beginning to question
their initial judgment. Rep. congressman Doug Bereuter recently said, "it was a mistake to launch
that military action."
The continued unrest in the Sunni-triangle and parts
of Baghdad does not seem to be resolving. There are
no signs that by January, when Iraqis are supposed to
have their first general elections, that the situation
will have improved. In fact, if the trends of recent
months are anything to go by, things may actually get
worse. This leaves open the question as to whether it
is actually wise to wait till January before going ahead
with elections. It is highly likely that security will
improve in Iraq after elections since Iraqis will no
longer feel indifferent, as they do now, to the interim
administration and will assume a collective responsibility
for making things better with a government that they
elected. For President Bush, the difference will be
between Americans going to poll with an unstable and
volatile Iraq or an unstable Iraq that has just held
its first ever elections.
|
|
|
