Sectarianism is ruining Iraq

Iraq’s future, its internal politics and type of government are all determined today through elections twice every four years; one poll is for governing councils in different governorates, and the other is the parliamentary election, which is more important politically. Theoretically, Iraq will be on the right track if both the governing councils and the parliament function properly. Hence, Iraq will be able to look to the future with more confidence. Sadly, reality does not reflect this image, for the situation in Iraq is on the verge of spiralling out of control and the country is walking steadily towards the unknown.

The events in Iraq no longer surprise anyone, as all the scenarios have become predictable. What happened in Hawija on April 23 was expected as it would be impossible for clashes not to break out between protesters demonstrating for over 100 days and the government, which sent its armed forces to face them. The clashes were violent and there was a lot of bloodshed, which further inflamed the political scene in the country. As a result, the crisis worsened and became more complicated.

From the very beginning, the government was against demonstrations in the western and northern governorates. It also considered these protests as deceit and treason, manipulated by Al Qaida and supporters of the former regime. Needless to say, the Iraqi government deals in the same manner with a multitude of other cases, which renders it unable to run the country.

Unlike every other democratic system, the Iraqi government does not respect its nationals and their rights. This makes it easier for it to level accusations without providing any real proof.

The Iraqi government’s move towards the Hawija protests can be discussed through three arguments.

The first argument presumes that the demonstrations and protests against the government are sectarian in nature. In addition, it is assumed that this sectarianism has infiltrated through Syria, which is witnessing a full-fledged sectarian war.

However, this presumption is false as people of different Iraqi sects have sympathised with the protesters and their demands. The UN secretary-general’s representative in Iraq Martin Cobbler also said in a press conference on April 27 that the UN backs the legitimate demands of Iraqi demonstrators, which serve the Iraqi people’s rights, while reserving its judgement on political demands or any violence targeted at the demonstrators.

The second argument is related to the government’s prestige. Some believe that no one must be given a chance to challenge the government or to degrade it. This justification is strange because how can anyone demanding their rights be underminging the government’s stature? A government’s status is never measured by the extent of its harshness and use of force.

The Iraq protests were peaceful for 100 days after they started. And, democratic states usually uphold their status and dignity by abiding by the Constitution, in addition to their respect for human rights and treatment of every individual as a citizen and not as one belonging to a particular sect, race or city.

The third argument is about maintaining the dignity and status of the armed forces. The role of the armed forces in a country is not to intervene internally. Internal security is the responsibility of the police. So why insist on pushing the army into the government’s conflict against the people?

Looking back at recent events in the Arab world, it was clear for everyone to see that both the Egyptian and Tunisian armies did not suppress the demonstrations and thus maintained their dignity in the eyes of their people. Those following Iraqi affairs would have noticed that things are run according to the interests of political parties. The latest governing council elections coincided with the protests, which look set to continue till the parliamentary elections. The sectarian divide shows that the government is keen to keep things as they are.

Dr Mohammad Akef Jamal is an Iraqi writer based in Dubai.