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.
You can find this online at http://www.iprospect.org.uk/na8sep.html