الحكومه العراقيه الجديده

[salim]

http://radiosawa.com/article.aspx?id=800190

 

مجموعه السيد العطوان تصدر بيانا تحت اسم دولي وهمي

 

حذرت مجموعة الأزمات الدولية الأميركية من احتمال اندلاع حرب أهلية في العراق ما لم يحصل العرب السنة على دور يفوق استحقاقهم الانتخابي

 

 

ويستعرض تقرير المجموعة الأسباب التي تعتقد أنها أوصلت الأوضاع في العراق إلى حافة الانهيار، وأولها ما وصفه بالدستور الطائفي الذي تمت المصادقة عليه العام الماضي لأنه أدى إلى تهميش السنة واستعدائهم بحسب التقرير.

والسبب الآخر هو الانتخابات التي جرت العام الماضي والتي وصفها التقرير بأنها كانت انتخابات ناقصة ومليئة بالعيوب لأنها أهدت الفوز إلى تحالف الكرد والشيعة، وهو التحالف الذي وضع مسودة الدستور وشكل الحكومة التي اتهمها التقرير بالإشراف على ما وصفها بعمليات قتل عشوائية بحق السنة انتقاما للشيعة.

ويرى التقرير أن السبب الثالث هو مجلس الحكم الانتقالي الذي تأسس العام 2003 الذي جاء تعيين أعضائه كمكافأة للمذاهب والقوميات دون أدنى اعتبار للبرامج السياسية للأحزاب كما جاء في التقرير.

ويذكر التقرير أن رابع الأسباب ربما يكون له علاقة بطبيعة النظام السابق وقمعه الوحشي المستمر للشيعة والكرد الذين رأى فيهم النظام أعداء يهددون بقاءه.

ويقترح التقرير حلولا للأزمة التي يواجهها العراق تتلخص بأن يقبل الشيعة والكرد الذين فازوا بالانتخابات الأخيرة بتشكيل حكومة وحدة وطنية حقيقية يمنح فيها السنة دورا مميزا.

[salim]

BahirJ wrote

 

From my point of view, this report has few facts and lies at the same time. It was using the facts to presents the lies and to justify giving the Sunnia Arabs more an excess to their electoral shares in the govenment. It is also targetting the constitution as s recipe for Iraq disintegration, and the last election as a total fraud. Its sound like an analysis any member of Iraqi Sunni Scholars. The conclusion was to ignore all the efforts made so far on the political front and trast from scratch.

 

 

Your comments are more than welcome.

 

Bahir

 

 

The Next Iraqi War? Sectarianism and Civil Conflict

Middle East Report N°52

Read The Full Report Here

 

 

 

27 February 2006

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

The bomb attack on a sacred Shiite shrine in Samarra on 22 February 2006 and subsequent reprisals against Sunni mosques and killings of Sunni Arabs is only the latest and bloodiest indication that Iraq is teetering on the threshold of wholesale disaster. Over the past year, social and political tensions evident since the removal of the Baathist regime have turned into deep rifts. Iraq’s mosaic of communities has begun to fragment along ethnic, confessional and tribal lines, bringing instability and violence to many areas, especially those with mixed populations. The most urgent of these incipient conflicts is a Sunni-Shiite schism that threatens to tear the country apart. Its most visible manifestation is a dirty war being fought between a small group of insurgents bent on fomenting sectarian strife by killing Shiites and certain government commando units carrying out reprisals against the Sunni Arab community in whose midst the insurgency continues to thrive. Iraqi political actors and the international community must act urgently to prevent a low-intensity conflict from escalating into an all-out civil war that could lead to Iraq’s disintegration and destabilise the entire region.

 

2005 will be remembered as the year Iraq’s latent sectarianism took wings, permeating the political discourse and precipitating incidents of appalling violence and sectarian “cleansing”. The elections that bracketed the year, in January and December, underscored the newly acquired prominence of religion, perhaps the most significant development since the regime’s ouster. With mosques turned into party headquarters and clerics outfitting themselves as politicians, Iraqis searching for leadership and stability in profoundly uncertain times essentially turned the elections into confessional exercises. Insurgents have exploited the post-war free-for-all; regrettably, their brutal efforts to jumpstart civil war have been met imprudently with ill-tempered acts of revenge.

 

In the face of growing sectarian violence and rhetoric, institutional restraints have begun to erode. The cautioning, conciliatory words of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the Shiites’ pre-eminent religious leader, increasingly are falling on deaf ears. The secular centre has largely vanished, sucked into the maelstrom of identity politics. U.S. influence, while still extremely significant, is decreasing as hints of eventual troop withdrawal get louder. And neighbouring states, anxious to protect their strategic interests, may forsake their longstanding commitment to Iraq’s territorial integrity if they conclude that its disintegration is inevitable, intervening directly in whatever rump states emerge from the smoking wreckage.

 

If Iraq falls apart, historians may seek to identify years from now what was the decisive moment. The ratification of the constitution in October 2005, a sectarian document that both marginalised and alienated the Sunni Arab community? The flawed January 2005 elections that handed victory to a Shiite-Kurdish alliance, which drafted the constitution and established a government that countered outrages against Shiites with indiscriminate attacks against Sunnis? Establishment of the Interim Governing Council in July 2003, a body that in its composition prized communal identities over national-political platforms? Or, even earlier, in the nature of the ousted regime and its consistent and brutal suppression of political stirrings in the Shiite and Kurdish communities that it saw as threatening its survival? Most likely it is a combination of all four, as this report argues.

 

Today, however, the more significant and pressing question is what still can be done to halt Iraq’s downward slide and avert civil war. Late in the day, the U.S. administration seems to have realised that a fully inclusive process – not a rushed one – is the sine qua non for stabilisation. This conversion, while overdue, is nonetheless extremely welcome. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad’s intensive efforts since late September 2005 to bring the disaffected Sunni Arab community back into the process have paid off, but only in part. He is now also on record as stating that the U.S. is “not going to invest the resources of the American people to build forces run by people who are sectarian”. Much remains to be done, however, to recalibrate the political process further and move the country on to a path of reconciliation and compromise.

 

First, the winners of the December 2005 elections, the main Shiite and Kurdish lists, must establish a government of genuine national unity in which Sunni Arab leaders are given far more than a token role. That government, in turn, should make every effort to restore a sense of national identity and address Iraqis’ top priorities: personal safety, jobs and reliable access to basic amenities such as electricity and fuel. It should also start disbanding the militias that have contributed to the country’s destabilisation. The U.S. has a critical role to play in pressuring its Iraqi war-time allies to accept such an outcome. States neighbouring Iraq as well as the European Union should push toward the same goal.

Secondly, substantive changes must be made to the constitution once the constitutional process is reopened one month after the government enters office. These should include a total revision of key articles concerning the nature of federalism and the distribution of proceeds from oil sales. As it stands, this constitution, rather than being the glue that binds the country together, has become both the prescription and blueprint for its dissolution. Again, the U.S. and its allies should exercise every effort to reach that goal.

Thirdly, donors should promote non-sectarian institution building by allocating funds to ministries and projects that embrace inclusiveness, transparency and technical competence and withholding funds from those that base themselves on cronyism and graft.

Fourthly, while the U.S. should explicitly state its intention to withdraw all its troops from Iraq, any drawdown should be gradual and take into account progress in standing up self-sustaining, non-sectarian Iraqi security forces as well as in promoting an inclusive political process. Although U.S. and allied troops are more part of the problem than they can ever be part of its solution, for now they are preventing – by their very presence and military muscle – ethnic and sectarian violence from spiralling out of control. Any assessment of the consequences, positive and negative, that can reasonably be anticipated from an early troop withdrawal must take into account the risk of an all-out civil war.

Finally – and regrettable though it is that this is necessary – the international community, including neighbouring states, should start planning for the contingency that Iraq will fall apart, so as to contain the inevitable fall-out on regional stability and security. Such an effort has been a taboo, but failure to anticipate such a possibility may lead to further disasters in the future.

RECOMMENDATIONS

 

To the Winners of the December 2005 Elections:

 

1. Strongly condemn sectarian-inspired attacks, such as the bombing of the al-Askariya shrine in Samarra but also reprisal attacks, and urge restraint.

 

2. Establish a government of national unity that enjoys popular credibility by:

 

(a) including members of the five largest electoral coalitions;

 

( dividing the key ministries of defence, interior, foreign affairs, finance, planning and oil fairly between these same lists, with either defence or interior being given to a respected and non-sectarian Sunni Arab leader, and the other to a similar leader of the United Iraqi Alliance;

 

© assigning senior government positions to persons with technical competence and personal integrity chosen from within the ministry; and

 

(d) adopting an agenda that prioritises respect for the rule of law, job creation and provision of basic services.

 

3. Revise the constitution’s most divisive elements by:

 

(a) establishing administrative federalism on the basis of provincial boundaries, outside the Kurdish region; and

 

( creating a formula for the fair, centrally-controlled, nationwide distribution of oil revenues from both current and future fields, and creating an independent agency to ensure fair distribution and prevent corruption.

 

4. Halt sectarian-based attacks and human rights abuses by security forces, by:

 

(a) beginning the process of disbanding militias, integrating them into the new security forces so as to ensure their even distribution throughout these forces’ hierarchies, at both the national and local levels;

 

( continuing to build the security forces (national army, police, border guards and special forces, as well as the intelligence agencies) on the basis of ethnic and religious inclusiveness, with members of Iraq’s various communities distributed across the hierarchies of those forces as well as within the governorates;

 

© ensuring that the ministers of defence and interior, as well as commanders and senior officers at both the national and local level are appointed on the basis of professional competence, non-sectarian outlook and personal integrity; and

 

(d) establishing an independent commission, accountable to the council of deputies, to oversee the militias’ dismantlement and the creation of fully integrated security forces.

 

5. In implementing de-Baathification, judge former Baath party members on the basis of crimes committed, not political beliefs or religious convictions, and establish an independent commission, accountable to the council of deputies, to oversee fair and non-partisan implementation. Both former Baathis and non-Baathis suspected of human rights crimes or corruption should be held accountable before independent courts.

 

To the Government of the United States:

 

6. Press its Iraqi allies to constitute a government of national unity and, in particular, seek to prevent the defence and interior ministries from being awarded to the same party or to strongly sectarian or otherwise polarising individuals.

 

7. Encourage meaningful amendments to the constitution to produce an inclusive document that protects the fundamental interests of all principal communities, as in recommendation 3 above.

 

8. Assist in building up security forces that are not only adequately trained and equipped, but also inclusive and non-sectarian.

 

9. Engage Iraq’s neighbours, including Iran, in helping solve the crisis by taking the measures described in recommendation 11 below, and actively promote the reconciliation conference agreed to in Cairo in November 2005, encouraging representatives of all Iraqi parties and communities, as well as of governments in the region, to attend.

 

To Donors:

 

10. Allocate funding to ministries and government projects, as well as civil society initiatives, strictly according to their compliance with principles of inclusiveness, transparency and competence.

 

To States Neighbouring Iraq:

 

11. Help stabilise Iraq by:

 

(a) expressing or reiterating their strategic interest in Iraq’s territorial integrity;

 

( encouraging the winners of the December 2005 elections to form a government of national unity and accede to demands to modify the constitution (as outlined in recommendation 3 above);

 

© strengthening efforts to prevent funds and insurgents from crossing their borders into Iraq; and

 

(d) promoting, and sending representatives to, the planned reconciliation conference in Baghdad.

 

Amman/Baghdad/Brussels, 27 February 2006

 

 

 

Full Edit

Quick Edit

moron99 Today, 01:26 PM Post #28

 

 

Member

 

 

Group: Members

Posts: 18

Joined: 8-February 06

Member No.: 671

 

 

bahirj,

 

the document aims to create a successful modern democracy. There is a difference between theorectical demcracy and functional democracy. Theorectical democracy has not proven itself stable wheras modern democracy has. Theorectical democracy becomes a winner takes all government. A government where 51% of the population can excercise saddamee oppression against the other 49%. Modern democracy is a hybrid between representative republic and democratic state. It yields power shares in accordance with population and intentionally exagerates the power of small minorities in order to avoid resentment and sedition. Since there are democratic underpinnings, the minority can never impose itself upon the majority and the net result is avoiding the oppression of minorities.

 

I read the document you referenced as a list of suggestions to guide Iraq towards a functional modern democracy and away from the traps of theorectical democracy. There is a phrase "tyranny of the majority". I think what the paper is saying is that Iraq is heading into such a condidtion. That if steps are not taken to push Iraq away from theorectical democracy and towards modern democracy then a revolt of the minorities with ensuing civil war might be inevitable.

 

I agree. If Iraq's government continues to embrace the "winner takes all" mentality of politics then the violence will increase rather than decrease.

[salim]

Copying from another post

 

 

QUOTE(moron99 @ Feb 28 2006, 01:26 PM)

 

bahirj,

 

the document aims to create a successful modern democracy. There is a difference between theorectical demcracy and functional democracy. ................... It (functional) democracy yields power shares in accordance with population and intentionally exagerates the power of small minorities in order to avoid resentment and sedition. Since there are democratic underpinnings, the minority can never impose itself upon the majority and the net result is avoiding the oppression of minorities.

 

I read the document you referenced as a list of suggestions to guide Iraq towards a functional modern democracy ............

 

I agree. If Iraq's government continues to embrace the "winner takes all" mentality of politics then the violence will increase rather than decrease.

 

 

 

Texgentleman wrote,

-----------------------------------------------------------------

 

By Walter E. Williams

 

Mar 1, 2006

 

High up on my list of annoyances are references to the United States as a democracy and the suggestion that Iraq should become a democracy. The word "democracy" appears in neither of our founding documents -- the Declaration of Independence nor the U.S. Constitution.

 

Our nation's founders had disdain for democracy and majority rule. James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10, said in a pure democracy, "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual." During the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said that "in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy."

 

John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Chief Justice John Marshall added, "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos." The founders knew that a democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny suffered under King George III. Their vision for us was a republic.

 

But let's cut to Iraq and President Bush's call for it to become a democracy. I can't think of a worse place to have a democracy -- majority rule. Iraq needs a republic like that envisioned by our founders -- decentralized and limited government power. In a republican form of government, there is rule of law. All citizens, including government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government intervenes in civil society to protect its citizens against force and fraud but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange.

 

Democracy, what the Bush administration calls for, is different. In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. The law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws aren't necessarily based upon reason but power. In other words, democracy is just another form of tyranny -- tyranny of the majority.

 

In Iraq, Arabs are about 75 percent of the population, Kurds about 20 percent and Turkomen and Assyrian the balance. Religiously, Shia are about 60 percent of the population, Sunni 35 percent with Christian and other religions making up the balance. If a majority-rule democracy emerges, given the longstanding hate and distrust among ethnic/religious groups, it's a recipe for conflict. The reason is quite simple. Majority rule is a zero-sum game with winners and losers, with winners having the power to impose their wills on the minority. Conflict emerges when the minority resists.

 

The ideal political model for Iraq is Switzerland's cantonal system. Historically, Switzerland, unlike most European countries, was made up of several different major ethnic groups -- Germans, French, Italians and Rhaeto-Romansch. Over the centuries, conflicts have arisen between these groups, who differ in language, religion (Catholic and Protestant) and culture. The resolution to the conflict was to allow the warring groups to govern themselves.

 

Switzerland has 26 cantons. The cantons are divided into about 3,000 communes. Switzerland's federal government controls only those interests common to all cantons -- national defense, foreign policy, railways and the like. All other matters are controlled by the individual cantons and communes. The Swiss cantonal system enables people of different ethnicity, language, culture and religion to live at peace with one another. As such, Switzerland's political system is well suited to an ethnically and religiously divided country such as Iraq.

 

By the way, for President Bush and others who insist on calling our country a democracy, should we change our pledge of allegiance to say "to the democracy, for which it stands," and should we rename "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" to "The Battle Hymn of the Democracy"?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Texas gentleman,

 

language is dynamic. each new genration thinks slightly different meaning of a word. With the passage of time the words will have an entirely different meaning. "Democracy" is such a word. To a westerner "democracy" means a complex system of power sharing that protects each minority while choosing leaders from open ballots. To others "democracy" is still taken literally. What we need to determine is what the people of Iraq want. Do they want the stability, security, and prosperity of modern democracy? Or do they want the power of majority? Perhaps what they want is something in the midlle? Perhaps what they want is "majority rules" for a short duration (in order to perform a social purging) followed by a transition to stability?

 

This is a subject that has never been explored or explained to us westerners. It is also a source of much disagreement that leaves our leaders without clear direction.

[Guest Guest_BahirJ_*]

It sounds that the Kurds are taking a lead role conspiring against the Shias coalition list now. If the news are right, it confirmed what I heard about the American plan to get all the lists in a united front against the Jaafree. The 2/3 majority failure can leave the second option of simple majority to bring Kurds slate , Sunni parties and Alawi Secular slate on board. I don't know how can we treat this as a unity government if the larger slate is excluded unless the SCRI is joining the crowd also. This could bring the whole country into chaos and disintegration would be unavoidable

[moron99]

It sounds that the Kurds are taking a lead role conspiring against the Shias coalition list now. If the news are right, it confirmed what I heard about the American plan to get all the lists in a united front against the Jaafree. The 2/3 majority failure can leave the second option of simple majority to bring Kurds slate , Sunni parties and Alawi Secular slate on board. I don't know how can we treat this as a unity government if the larger slate is excluded unless the SCRI is joining the crowd also. This could bring the whole country into chaos and disintegration would be unavoidable

 

 

Live by the sword. Die by the sword.

 

The UIA has conducted itself in accordance with the policy that whomever has the largest slate gets to have nearly complete control. They have used this control to the detrement of others. Now the "others" want to form an even larger slate.

 

It would seem hypocritcal for UIA to reject the wishes of a slate even larger than themselves. But realistically, they will not be faced with this problem. The "other" slate is an inclusive coalition by its very creation. It will also have the US ambassador working hard to promote unity. So it will seek to include UIA instead of bully them around. You may object at first because of the fear of letting sunni back into government. However, you will be better off with an inclusive coalition running your government than the UIA bully. UIA has done a very bad job in their first year. Four more years with them at the helm and your country will be ruined.

[salim]

BahirJ,

I might agree with you that without Coalition Shia slate, any government might be hard to go through, if not impossible. However, any goverment with no broad agreement is too not a good choice to go out of the current government establioshment crises..

Kurds might trying to play it to their favour, and that is their right as any other too. So what is the solution. I think Samarra exlosion is helping comming up with a solution to the dead lock.

 

Samara broved to all Iraqi parties and their supporters, US/Iranian/ Arab governemnts, two very important things

1- Shia is the real power in Iraq today's politics .

2- Keeping playing with examining their patience might not be a good policy. Today Systani , Hakim, Alsader and other were able to hold the situation, but it was so clear that they might be no longer able to maintain that level of controling reactions. Specially with the continueing random killing by Sadamists and Qaeda terrorists.

 

Chios is the worse that any of these parties might like to see in Iraq. They should work harder to come up with a solution.

 

I personally think that a possible solution is by have iraq ran for the next year by a Technocrats who have no representation in the Perliment. PM should be Some one who is appointed by Coalition majorty slate, and be accepted by other main parties.

 

After the the expected constitution ammendments get in action, a new governemnt takes hold. I know such proposal will hardly be accepted by different groups though..

 

In a poll in Alsabah official newspaper 80% of Iraqis expressed their choce of prefering a non party based governement..

 

Two issues might be raised on this. First it would look like we are punishing those who win the harts of people. The other thing is that some of Alawee technocrate minsters were the most corrupted in Iraq governemnt history..

 

One other solution might to keep the current temp governemnt until the amends get into action.. I am sure this would not please the Sunni Arab islamic parties who are eagr to tast the hony of being in power.

 

 

Some time I would like to go with extreem of asking for a majority only governemnt , what ever this majority is. Shia , or Kurds broader allaiance. The country is in critical moment and any delay might be not the right option!

[salim]

I think there will a big suprise in the comming days.

Yesterday after the firm stand by the Coalition Shia slate to the demands for changing the Aljaafree nomination, there was a vey unusual worm meeting between The Sunni arab biggest slate Altawafuq with Aljafree in presence of main shia figures including Alchalabee !

AlIraqi footages showed a very warm talks between ADulaimee and the interior minister also with Chalabee..

I don't know what does that might mean but I always thought that it is the Sunni Arab moment to jump and put their agenda in front of the coalition who might be more willing to give to them than to the Kurds parties who tried to play the music chair game. What is common between the Coalition and Tawafuq should be much more than between Tawafuq and Alawee or The kurds. Both of the slates are with islamic face, both of them Arab, both of them suffer more from Terrorism..

 

There was some reprots that are talking of bigger block of Sunni arab, kurds and Alawee in front of the coalition. I don't see this as possibility. They all might be unified against Coalition, but what is diffrentiating them is much more that what getting them together

[salim]

As I expected the change just happened . Kurd retrieted and change direction 180 ndegree. leaving Sunnis hanging in the middel. I always thought that Kurd are the smartest politicians in Iraq. Sunnis rather junior politicians are getting trapped. They need to move fast now!

talabani in news confrence confirmed that he very stood against Aljaafree in person. He was talking with Alsder rep who negtiated with him the current issues. Barazani issued a very strong statement denied that the Kurds were against Aljaafree and he resfused any statements by any kurds rep going that way and confirmed that these are personal and will keep their very close ties with the Shia Coalition..

 

Today a kurd envoy Dr. Barham Salih visited najaf to talk to Systani and Alsder. I think the issue about the governemnt is already pased the bottel neck. There are some details need to be resolved between the Suni and Kurds about who will be the President.

[salim]

The new Perliment will open on Thursday as announced in Baghdad through an official call by President talabani..

[salim]

http://www.sotaliraq.com/iraqi-news/nieuws.php?id=19698

 

In arbic. Alchalabi is talking about strenghten relations with Turky.. Another reason why Kurds are very suspecious about Jaafree. !

Today Chalabi visited Alsystani and had a news confrence with Alsader. He called for supporting Jaafree.

[Guest Hameeha harameeha]

http://www.azzaman.com/azzaman/http/displa...3/03-07/999.htm

 

 

In arabic.. Alzaman newspaper who had close ties to Alawee. Reporting that the main demand by the opposition to Jaafree to have Alawee run the economy file!!

Just imagin the one who was accused of having the worst corrupted governemnt in Iraq history, is the one who manage the next critical building in Iraq..

[Airedale]

Salim,

Your posts are short but full of more important information than we get anywhere in the west;

As I expected the change just happened .

 

Kurd retrieted and change direction 180 ndegree. leaving Sunnis hanging in the middel.

I always thought that Kurd are the smartest politicians in Iraq. Sunnis rather junior politicians are getting trapped. They need to move fast now!

.......

Today a kurd envoy Dr. Barham Salih visited najaf to talk to Systani and Alsder. I think the issue about the governemnt is already pased the bottel neck. There are some details need to be resolved between the Suni and Kurds about who will be the President.

Good post Salim,

The old dinosaur MSM won't give us this the of coverage and style you have.

 

thanks.

 

I like your style

 

 

 

 

My only comment on what may happen in the distant future is this;

 

With a newly formed government, many current politicians want to become career government employees. They may have themselves as their most important concern.

 

The individual politician must not grow comfortable with power...

they may aquire a taste for power and

won't give it up easily.

[Guest لدستور ومجلس النواب والجعفري]

http://www.alsabaah.com/modules.php?name=N...ticle&sid=19389

Intersting article by Dr. Shaboot. In Aslabah Iraq sponsored newspaper.

Commenting on the current governemnt establishment process, he quated Mr. Hakim of Shia coalition as descriping it as complicated.

Alshaboot thinks that it is so for many resons. Onre is a phrase in the constitution where it is not very clear if the constitution rules from now or after perlement open.

As for Aljaafree, he wrote that it is the right of Coalition to nomionate, but it is the right of the others to refuse too.!

 

An article that you can't find on a governemnt sponsored media talking about the governement!

 

الدستور ومجلس النواب والجعفري: كل شيء قابل للخلاف..والحوار أيضا !

 

 

 

 

 

محمد عبد الجبار الشبوط

وصف السيد عبد العزيز الحكيم الوضع السياسي العراقي بانه معقد. وهذا وصف صحيح ولا يجانب الحقيقة الموضوعية. وليس من الصعب معرفة مكامن العقد والصعوبات في الموقف العراقي.

 

فالنخب السياسية المتصارعة على تقاسم السلطة في البلد تختلف على اكثر من موضوع، بين مؤيد ومعارض، بحيث صار هذا الخلاف يضم قائمة طويلة من الثنائيات المتقابلة التي اصبح من الممكن رسم الخارطة السياسية في ضوئها.

هناك اولا الخلاف على الدستور الدائم. فهناك من يرى ان الدستور لم يدخل مرحلة التطبيق والالزام بعد، وان البلاد مازالت خاضعة لقانون ادارة الدولة في المرحلة الانتقالية الذي اصدره مجلس الحكم المنحل وغير المنتخب. فيما يرى اخرون ان الدستور صار نافذا بمجرد اعلان نتائج الاستفتاء ونشره في الجريدة الرسمية. وموضع الخلاف عبارة في الدستور الدائم تقول ان الدستور يعتبر نافذا بتشكيل الحكومة بموجبه، فضلا عن شرطين اخرين. شرط تشكيل الحكومة اشكالي، اذ كيف يصار الى تشكيل الحكومة بموجب الدستور اذا لم يكن ملزما قبل ذلك؟

وهناك الخلاف على موعد اجتماع مجلس النواب. البعض يرفض دعوة المجلس قبل الانتهاء من عقد الصفقة السياسية بشأن المناصب الرئاسية الثلاثة: رئاسة الجمهورية ورئاسة الوزارة ورئاسة البرلمان. فيما يرى اخرون انه من اللازم اجتماع البرلمان الان وقبل تشكيل الحكومة والاتفاق على الرئاسات الثلاث، لأن البرلمان هو المؤسسة الدستورية التي تحسم هذه القضايا.

وهناك الخلاف المعلن بشأن ترشيح الدكتور ابراهيم الجعفري، حيث اصبح من المعروف ان ثلاث قوائم رئيسة في البرلمان لا تؤيد ترشيح الجعفري لرئاسة الوزارة من قبل كتلة الائتلاف صاحبة الحق بتولي رئاسة الوزارة حسب الدستور الدائم المختلف عليه. الدستور يضمن "حق التولي" للكتلة البرلمانية الاكبر، حيث يلزم رئاسة الجمهورية بتكليف مرشحها لتشكيل الحكومة.. وهو حق، اعني حق التولي، معترف به من قبل الجميع. و تملك الكتلة الاكبر حق الترشيح ايضا انطلاقا من الحق الاول، حيث لا يملك احد ان يفرض عليها من ترشح. بعد الترشيح يأتي التعيين. وهنا يكمن الخلاف المضمر في جواب السؤال: من يملك حق التعيين؟ هل هو الكتلة الاكبر ام مجلس النواب؟ حسب الدستور، الجواب هو: مجلس النواب. ومن ثم فمن حق البرلمان وحده ان يعين او يسقط مرشح الكتلة الاكبر، عند التصويت على منح الثقة. وامام رئيس الوزراء المكلف استحقاقان: الاول ان يشكل حكومته خلال ثلاثين يوما، والثاني ان ينال ثقة مجلس النواب بالاغلبية المطلقة. فاذا فشل رئيس الوزراء المكلف في تشكيل وزارته خلال ثلاثين يوما، ربما بسبب عدم رغبة الاخرين في التعاون معه، اجاز الدستور للرئاسة ان تكلف مرشحا اخر. او اذا لم يحصل على الاغلبية المطلقة، بعد تشكيل الحكومة خلال المدة القانونية، ايضا جاز للرئاسة ان تكلف شخصا اخر.

في الحالتين يخسر المرشح فرصة تشكيل الوزارة مرة اخرى، ويسقط معه حق كتلته في التولي والترشيح، حيث ان الدستور لايلزم الرئاسة بان تكلف مرشحا من الكتلة نفسها في المرة الثانية

[Guest Guest]

ان غدا لناظره قريب

 

 

 

 

معضلة الحكومة العراقية

سعد بن طفلة

 

 

شهدت الساحة العربية تشكيلات حكومية جديدة، فهناك حكومة إماراتية وكويتية، وتغيير حكومي يمني، وحكومة مصرية جاءت بعد الانتخابات، ولبنانية أعقبت الاغتيالات، كل الحكومات تشكلت، إلا الحكومة العراقية التي انتهت الانتخابات التي يفترض أن تنتج تشكيلها في ديسمبر الماضي، كم هو محزن أن تتشكل الحكومات العربية، التي لم تأت بعد مخاض دام ونضالات وتضحيات، مثل تلك التي قدمها الشعب العراقي للتخلص من الدكتاتورية الصدامية، ولا تتشكل الحكومة العراقية، حتى الحكومة الفلسطينية قد تتشكل قبل أن تتشكل الحكومة العراقية.

الائتلاف العراقي (وهو قوائم شيعية فقط)، يصر على ترشيح رئيس الوزراء الدكتور إبراهيم الجعفري المنتهية وزارته منذ نهاية الانتخابات، والجعفري ليس على توافق مع رئاسة طالباني، والخلاف بين الرجلين ظهر للعلن في أكثر من مناسبة، خصوم الجعفري يتهمونه بالانفراد بالقرارات، وبطائفية السياسات، ويتهمه خصومه أيضا بأن عهده شهد انهيارا أمنيا وخدماتيا وصدوعا وشروخا في جدار التعايش بين الطوائف والأديان العراقية، وبانهيار للخدمات الأساسية التي يعاني من نقصها المواطن العادي.

 

تتوالى تصريحات الساسة العراقيين ـ تصريحا تلو تصريح ـ بأن الحكومة العراقية المنشود تشكيلها «لا بد أن تكون حكومة وحدة وطنية، تضم كافة الطوائف ولا تستثني أحدا»، والغريب العجيب أن أكثر المرددين لهذه العبارة هم الطائفيون أنفسهم، فمن زعيم تجمع لا يضم إلا السنة فقط، إلى آخر شيعي التنظيم إلى ثالث «كردي» الحزب حصرا وينادي «ليل نهار» بوحدة العراق «لكل العراقيين».

 

مزاد من التصريحات يكرره كل الساسة العراقيين، والإنسان العراقي الحائر يمط شفتيه ولسان حاله يقول: «أسمع كلامك يعجبني، أشوف أفعالك أتعجب».

 

شهور ثلاثة مرت على انتهاء الانتخابات التشريعية العراقية التي جرت العام الماضي، وتشكيل الحكومة «لا يزال يراوح»، والعجيب أن ساسة العراق اليوم ما انفكوا يرددون: «إن التعجيل في تشكيل حكومة وحدة عراقية من شأنه قطع الطريق على قوى الإرهاب، وتجنب التقسيم والإسراع في تقديم الخدمات الأساسية للإنسان العراقي»، وتمضي الأسابيع والشهور والمراقب المحب الحاني تتراكم في قلبه مشاعر الخيبة والحسرة، على شعب تتملص فرصة تاريخية من بين يديه لبناء الحلم العراقي «الجميل». يكرر بعض ساسة العراق اليوم، بأن هناك «مخططا صهيو ـ امبرياليا ـ صليبيا لتقسيم العراق، وإشعال الفتنة الطائفية بين أديان وطوائف شعبنا الواحد.. ولكن هيهات أن يتحقق لهم ذلك»، تكرار هذه الكلام يتم من مقر الأحزاب الطائفية نفسها، التي لا تحوي في عضويتها سوى أبناء طائفة واحدة، بمعنى آخر يقوم نفس من يدعي بأنه يدرك «المخطط» ويتصدى له بتنفيذه بغباء منقطع النظير، أو ربما بإدراك مصلحي شخصي يتجاوز مصالح الشعب والعراق المنكوب.

 

ويردد ساسة العراق اليوم قائمة من تضحياتهم وتضحيات أسرهم وأهلهم وعشيرتهم وطوائفهم للتخلص من الدكتاتورية، وهذا صحيح، ولا ينكره سوى جاهل أو جاحد، ولكن أليس الأجدر أن تستمر التضحيات اليوم بالكراسي حفاظا على العراق، بدلا من المزايدة بحساب التضحيات من أجل جني المناصب والوزارات؟ أليس حريا، بمن عانى وضحى وقاسى بالأمس، أن يظهر زهده في مناصب اليوم إثباتا لقدسية التضحية ونموذجها المخلص من أجل الحرية، وليس من أجل السلطة..؟

 

عجيب أمر ساسة العراق اليوم، فلقد تحاشيت الكتابة عن أوضاعه منذ انتهاء الانتخابات الماضية، وأنا الذي أدعي بأني من أكثر متابعي شأنه، ومن أكثر الناس تمسكا بحلمه الجميل، وأصابتني الحيرة والخيبة يوما بعد يوم، وأنا أشهد رفاق الأمس يمزقون وطنهم الذي ضحوا من أجله بأيديهم، وهو ينزف دماء تقطر بين أصابعهم، وهم يرددون: «حكومة وحدة عراقية ..!».

[Guest Guest]

الحكومة العراقية ومأزق الشرعية

جابر حبيب جابر ، الشرق الاوسط

 

 

بعد مرور ما يقارب الثلاثة شهور على إجراء الانتخابات العراقية في 15 ديسمبر، يبدو الوضع السياسي العراقي وكأنه شبكة عنكبوت، وهذا التشابك يبدأ من داخل قوى الائتلاف العراقي إلى باقي الكتل الفائزة التى تشكل السلطات القادمة الى الدستور الناظم لهذه العملية.

 

في كل الديمقراطيات المعروفة الوليدة منها أو المتجذرة، فالانتخابات عندما تخاض، فإنها تحدد رئيس وزرائها في النظام البرلماني أو مرشحها لرئاسة الجمهورية في النظام الرئاسي، لكي يكون اختيار الناخبين لشخص رئيس الوزراء بناء على ثقتهم بمواصفاته ورؤاه، التي تصبح عوامل ترجيح له على الآخرين، بل إن هذا المرشح، عادة في الديمقراطيات، يكون معروفا للجمهور بفترة طويلة قبل الانتخابات، ويكون أداؤه وهو في المعارضة مراقبا ومقيما، حيث يجب أن تكون له مشاريع بديلة للمشاريع وللسياسات الحكومية القائمة، ويثبت امكانية وقدرة على تحقيقها ليس بمجرد الوعود الهلامية.

 

الذي جرى في الديمقراطية العراقية المتسارعة واللاهثة، بسبب جدول الاستحقاقات الضاغط، ان الكتل دخلت الانتخابات ولم تسم رئيس وزرائها فيما اذا نجحت، وإذا كان هذا مسموحا به مع الكتل ذات الحظوظ الضئيلة في الفوز، فإنه لم يكن كذلك بالنسبة الى الائتلاف صاحب الأغلبية بالبرلمان السابق، والحظ الاوفر في اللاحق. الا ان الائتلاف لو كان قد تباحث على تسمية رئيس وزرائه قبل تشكيله، لما كان هنالك ائتلاف اصلا! وهذا ما يفسر استنزاف ما يقارب شهرين بعد الانتخابات حتى يتسنى للائتلاف الاتفاق على مرشحه. وهذا المأزق الذي نعيشه اليوم يعود الى هذه المشكلة نفسها. فبعد ان اختار الائتلاف مرشحه بفارق صوت واحد، والذي رفض لاحقا من باقي القوائم الاخرى، التي ترى دستوريا ان للائتلاف حق تسمية مرشحه ولكن ليس تعيينه، وقد رفض سياسيا بحجة ان المرشح لا يحظى بإجماع وطني، وهنا عادة المشكلة الى الائتلاف ثانية، وهو الذي ظل يهرب منها الى الامام، فيما يفضل البعض من داخل الائتلاف، نسبة لقابلية إثارتها للحرج، ان يدفعها الى قبة البرلمان ويترك لسيف الزمن حلها، وهذا ما يجنب الائتلاف التفجر من داخله بجعل مرشحه، فيما اذا سقط، يكون بأيدي الساخرين لا بأيدي زملائه.

 

ومن هنا، وعندما ينعقد البرلمان، فسيتقدم الزمن الدستوري الى الواجهة، وهو الذي حدد مدة خمسة عشر يوما لاختيار مجلس الرئاسة، وضعف المدة لرئاسة الوزارة، فإذا استمرت الاطراف الرافضة على موقفها، فعند ذاك لا يعود أمام الائتلاف إلا العدول عن مرشحه أو المجازفة بإخراج التكليف إلى كتلة أخرى أو الدخول في مأزق دستوري.

 

لا شك انه وبعد انعقاد البرلمان، فالمتحمسون لإبقاء الجعفري، وهم الدعوة بشقيه والصدريون، سيدخلون في مفاوضات مع القوى الرافضة لترشيحه، الا انهم سيدخلونها وأيديهم مقيدة بعامل الزمن الذي سيبدأ بالنضوب امام صلابة قوى الرفض، وبضيق او انعدام هامش المناورة المتاح امام سقف المطالب التي ستعلو، وربما تصل الى التعجيز بنية الافشال، اذ من المتوقع أن ثمن القبول بالجعفري لن يقايض عند الأطراف الأخرى بأقل من توسيع وتمدد صلاحيات الرئاسة على حساب صلاحيات رئيس الوزراء، وبإيجاد مجلس امن قومي لقادة الكتل يتمتع بسلطات واسعة على حساب السلطتين التشريعية والتنفيذية، او ما ذهب اليه البعض الى مدى ابعد بإيجاد لجان تتولى صلاحيات سيادية واسعة على ملفات الاقتصاد والأمن والاعمار، يرأسها ويديرها قادة الكتل الفائزة، ويكون دور رئيس الوزراء المصادقة والإمضاء، عند ذاك سيكون ثمن التصاق الائتلافيين بمرشحهم باهظا، وينطوي على حكومة ضعيفة مفرغة الصلاحيات، يتحملون وحدهم لوم ووزر فشلها.

 

في المقابل فزيارة الجعفري الى تركيا، التي دفعته اليها مطرقة الشارع العراقي المختنق بأزماته، أوقعته تحت سندان التحالف الكردستاني، الذي جعلها نقطة اللاعودة وبدء معركة الاطاحة، فدحرج الاكراد كرة الثلج، وبتحمس اكبر من الطالباني، متوقعين أن هذه الكرة ستكبر لا محالة، بدرجة يصعب على الائتلاف العراقي صدها أو تفتيتها، الا من خلال تمزيق وحدته الداخلية، وانفصال بعض مكوناته، ومع ذلك فخيار الانفصال من أي كتلة أمر حرمته المرجعية الدينية، التي حافظت على حيادها في هذه الازمة، ليمثل ذلك الخيار من جهة أخرى، انتحارا سياسيا للطرف المنفصل.

 

وإلى ذلك جاء طلب التحالف الكردستاني متأخرا ليضع الائتلاف في موقف لا يحسد عليه، إذ أنه لو كان قد تم قبل اختياره لمرشحه، لسهل عليه العدول عنه دون ان يبدو ذلك كما لو أنه اذعان ، ومن ناحية اخرى فإنه يبدو من قبيل السذاجة ربط ذلك بزيارة تركيا، فجوهر الموقف الكردي يتعلق بمشكلة كركوك وتطبيع الأوضاع فيها، ومأخذهم على الجعفري بالتسويف والمماطلة في ذلك. الا ان الغريب هو اصطفاف جبهة التوافق معهم في قضية يعتبر المتخوفون فيها ان الحاق كركوك بكردستان، سيضخ الوقود في ماكينة الكرد الانفصالية.

 

من كل ما تقدم فإن أحلى الخيارات يعود امام الائتلاف مراً، بعد أن بات عليه الاحتفاظ بمرشح يبدو خلفه الاجماع واهنا. واذكر هنا المجازفة بالتقاطع مع الشركاء المنضوين حديثا الى العملية السياسية، والذين ومن دون ارضائهم سيبقى البلد في اتون العنف، واضف التفريط في حليف استراتيجي كالكرد جمعتهم به ارث المظلومية وسني الجهاد والمصلحة في التغيير، وزد الى كل ذلك التناكف مع اللاعب الأكبر في الساحة العراقية، اي الامريكيين الذين لم يكادوا يهضمون الصبغة الدينية للائتلاف، والتي ازدادت بإخراجه لليبراليين من صفوفه، حتى صعقوا برئيس وزراء يأتي بترجيح القوة الاكثر راديكالية وجموحا في الصف الشيعي، وفوق كل ذلك شارع بدأ يتململ أمام فواتير الموتى بالعشرات يوميا، بفعل المفخخات والاغتيالات، فيما بات يجاهر بالنقمة على طبقة سياسية بدت متشبثة بالمناصب، على حساب دماء وأمن من رفعوهم إليها.