Before delving into whether or not to participate in the parliamentary elections scheduled for next November, the kinds of electoral and political alliances that should be formed, or even the results and turnout, we must take a moment to think deeply about the electoral system. That entails deep contemplation and diligent assessment, especially since November's elections will be the sixth since the fall of the dictatorship. Accordingly, the process must comply with proper protocol and reflect a genuine commitment to accurately representing the wishes of the electorate, and the interests of ruling political parties and forces must not be allowed to get in the way.
The electoral process is the essence of democracy; it is the pillar of trust between voters and their representatives. In Iraq, parliamentarians do not believe in this process; they see elections as nothing but a means for legitimizing their power by tailoring the electoral law to their interests. Iraq’s elected representatives do not believe in democratic values or their mechanisms or processes. They see politics as a tool for maximizing gains and profits.
Consequently, they pass laws that do not reflect the ruling parties’ wishes rather than the will of the people. Unfortunately, these parties constantly seek electoral laws that grant them the greatest number of votes and seats. Our electoral system is plagued by constant fluctuation, as it is “periodically” amended, before each election cycle, to align with the interests of the political parties and forces that dominate parliament.
Our electoral system currently has several challenges, which can be summed up into three broad patterns. First, the periodic changes to electoral laws; second, the neglect of “organic” changes; and third, the absence of fixed rules.
Changing the law, before every election cycle, in line with the interest of the ruling parties and political forces allows them to reshape the electoral landscape. They decide the rules of the game in ways that serve their interests, meaning ways that misrepresent citizens.
Disregarding “organic” changes (demographic, social, and economic shifts) has distorted the distribution of parliamentary seats through uneven districting. This is not to imply that we must increase the number of parliamentary seats, but to call for giving this issue the attention and consideration it deserves.
This leads us to the third pattern: the lack of fixed rules. In Iraq, we have adopted a baseline of one deputy for every 100,000 citizens, but this ratio fluctuates from one cycle to another. Disputes over how seats are distributed, how votes are counted, and the mechanisms behind them all open the door to manipulating the results. This sometimes leads to the overrepresentation of certain groups and the marginalization of others, effectively dismantling and hollowing out the democratic process. Accordingly, it is crucial that we set stable mechanisms that can keep pace with “organic,” non-political changes.
To address these obstacles (which have been raised in closed-door meetings, with some becoming public) we have seen serious efforts to push for the adoption of a stable and fair electoral system that every government would be required to adhere to. I am not here to debate the form or nature of the law, but to outline what it should look like, based on meetings and discussions I’ve had with various stakeholders in the political scene.
A fair law must ensure the broadest possible representation, which the proportional representation system typically does best. Thus, it is important to point out the following:
The allocation of seats should be done on the basis of objective criteria, with the total number divided into three segments: the first (which makes up the overwhelming majority) goes to those who receive the highest number of votes, the second to ensure that we meet quotas set for women and minorities, and the third to a fixed number of compensatory seats, guaranteeing relative fairness on a national level and offsetting the discrepancies that result from imbalanced population distribution.
The country should be divided into fixed electoral districts that are proportionate to their population and periodically redrawn, especially when we see changes in population density or demographic shifts.
Who do we elect: the candidate or the party? This is a debate that requires deep dialogue between the political parties, the government, and the country’s social elites. It is a discussion that must be settled. Far too often, the electorate, who generally favor local figures, is often ignored in favor of the dominant party’s will. The 2021 election attests to the fact that voters prefer independents over partisan candidates or electoral blocs.
In both cases - whether the vote goes to a party or an individual candidate - tensions and resentments arise the day after the election, spreading the local neighborhood to the governorate and, finally, the center.
Some argue that voting for a political party rather than an individual candidate enhances the stability of the electoral and political process. On the other hand, others believe that each party should present a list of candidates for each electoral district and give voters the opportunity to cast a preferential vote within that list. In doing so, the era of a single list being imposed on the people would come to an end, creating space for independent figures, provided that they cross the threshold.
It is also important to discuss the “threshold,” which should be fixed to ensure that parties and independents can enter parliament on equal footing, contingent upon whether they can secure a certain number or percentage of the votes.
Another crucial task is regulating electoral campaigns in all their forms. State resources must not be allowed to be exploited for personal gain, and the public treasury cannot be drained to buy votes, whether early on or under flimsy, transparent pretexts.
These broad features would strengthen citizens’ trust in the electoral process first, and in the political process more broadly. In turn, increased public confidence would reinforce the foundations of political stability. Moreover, defining the size and popular weight of parliamentary blocs reinforces this stability and national decision-making, enhancing the processes for appointing the prime minister and his cabinet, and strengthening opposition, oversight, evaluation, and accountability.
Fair representation brings greater transparency to the democratic process and allows for engagement with future generations, allowing them to become involved in the development and reconstruction of a political system that we all agree, unfortunately, remains distorted.
Here, it is essential to reflect on the 2021 experience, the elections that were described as the most transparent and fair in Iraq’s modern history. I would like to address an important component of the legal framework for the electoral process, the Independent High Electoral Commission. I insist that its leadership and members not be associated with partisan forces and that this responsibility be entrusted to judges known for their integrity who are appointed in coordination with the judicial authority. These criteria reinforce trust in the process and reassure candidates, their backers, and voters alike.
By contrast, if the Commission, as is the case today, remains in the hands of ruling parties and political forces, it raises serious questions and concerns.
In conclusion, stabilizing the foundations of the electoral system and adopting objective and consistent standards is the cornerstone of a mature democracy - a system that genuinely reflects society’s will and adapts to demographic and social shifts. Reforming the electoral system along these lines is not merely an option. It is necessary for ensuring a more just and stable democratic future in Iraq. This discussion will continue, at the appropriate time and place.
