Can Iraq escape its endless cycle of chaos?

Although elections are held every four years, a government is not formed until the political factions' princes agree. Furthermore, interfering external actors now need to give any new government their approval.

From fear to chaos, the government — which is supposed to be a proxy for the state — has become a tool for political oligarchies that engulf the state and its institutions.

Managing the dispensation of resources

In recent years, the government's primary task has been the management of the state's economic resources for the benefit of political parties and the political class. The remaining resources are distributed as salaries for public sector employees. To secure a role in the public sector is now praiseworthy and commendable.

The political paralysis in Iraq seems to not be solely the result of the 2003 regime change, but rather a structural crisis concerning the style of government and its interactions, as described by Toby Dodge in his book 'Inventing Iraq.'

He argues that from the state's creation after World War I to the ousting of Saddam Hussein, "Iraq has been plagued by four structural problems: excessive levels of organised state violence to control and shape society; the use of state resources to buy the loyalty of segments of society; the state's reliance on oil income to increase its independence from society; and the exacerbation and manipulation of class and ethnic divisions as a governance strategy."

Twenty years ago, Dodge predicted that Iraq would face instability in the medium term, with no reduction in the cruelty and effectiveness displayed by the new rulers in Baghdad. The ruling elites would continue to control various aspects of the economy, and corruption would remain the mainstay of the political regime's longevity.

In 2018, the year he died, the late Iraqi sociologist Faleh Abdul-Jabbar summarised the structural imbalance in the relationship between Iraq's state and society by saying: "The state owns everything, and society owns nothing."

A state looking for a nation

Iraq was and still is "a state looking for a nation, not a nation looking for a state", he said. Hence, the nation-building project gave way to governance by coercion, without being completely limited to it. It gave utmost importance to the means of violence and those in charge of using them — the military.

Abdul-Jabbar believed that the problems of the state lay in both its economic reliance on oil and the imbalance of power between the executive (government), the legislature (parliament), and the judiciary.  

Economic change, he said, had "transformed the state in our country into a mere shop for selling oil and using its resources without accountability". Thus, the social contract (between government and people) has been torn up. The system has been reduced to a client group distributing all state benefits between themselves.

In terms of the state infrastructure, he said that this was characterised by the supremacy of the executive extending its control over the judiciary and legislature and gradually taking them over.

As a result, there is an absence of institutional accountability for those in power, with implications for the peaceful transfer of power, the replacement of leaders, or the renewal of mandates. Undermining the separation of powers is a tactic of tyranny.

The accumulation of political absurdities in Iraq is such that to come up with credible solutions requires dollops of imagination, optimism, luck, and/or external intervention. Failing all that, it requires a miracle.

Exemplifying the problem, Iraqis today still ask the same questions they asked when Iraq was established. What is its identity? Why can't its people coexist? Why the alienation between state and society? And why all the violence, cruelty, and constant spectre of death that continues to haunt Iraqis?

Back to square one

A century later, these questions are still in search of answers. The reality of the situation is unchanged. Every new ruler brings us back to zero. And while regimes and governments come and go, the seemingly perpetual 'crisis state' remains.

At its heart, political elites have failed in the nation-building project, failed to establish a nation state capable of containing its divisions and assimilating its internal diversity, in a form of governance based on the rule of institutions.

Iraqi rulers may have changed their titles, ideologies, and election slogans, but they have not built bridges of trust with the people. Instead, they have just prolonged the estrangement.

These political elites and beneficiaries have remained separate from, and superior to, society. In doing so, they have marginalised society's role in political life. This may partly explain why Iraqi governments never hesitate to massacre their citizens.

As for Iraqi democracy, it is fragile at best, reduced to elections. Not only can it not be relied upon to build the state or to establish the rule of institutions, it's very weakness may open the door for populists, demagogues, and tyrants.

Read more: 20 years after US invasion of Iraq, chaos and corruption reign

For elites, in an ideal world, the state would represent society, rise above its contradictions, implement its will through the rule of institutions and the effectiveness of the law, and thus be a guarantor of rights and freedoms. For citizens, the state's task would be to prevent security chaos and impose order by force.

Feasting on the state's remains

Perhaps Iraqi citizens have every right to reduce the state to the function of monopoliser and practitioner of violence, after the horrors they witnessed when their governments failed to prevent chaos and impose order. Armed mafias now control the security and safety of citizens. They have, in some ways, replaced the state.

Ultimately, we are very far from this ideal world. Those who control the state and dominate its capabilities and resources can claim victory. Nation-building will remain a deferred project. What remains of the state's symbolism and title is disappearing.

Efforts to dominate the state's remnants still dominate the minds of politicians, who never agree on the basis of a national consensus, so the seemingly infinite void at the heart of Iraqi politics prevails. In short, there is no end to the state of no-state.

Conflicts and disagreements continue, providing opportunities for intervention. Big problems remain unsolved, including the relationship between the political centre and the periphery, the final form of civil and political institutions, and the role of religion in political life.

Corruption as a way of life

Twenty years after Saddam was toppled by an invading force, Iraq tops the list of the most corrupt countries, according to the Global Corruption Perceptions Index.

Corruption in Iraq is like a spider's web. It is not limited to the higher echelons, but extends to all levels throughout both politics and society. Personal relationships with governmental or party figures often dictate contracts. Political parties and armed militias are heavily involved.

The representative of the United Nations Mission in Iraq (UNAMI), Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, was blunt. She described corruption in the country as "a major root cause of dysfunction in Iraq, and frankly, no leader can claim to be immune to it".

The results are eye watering. Former Finance Minister Ali Abdul Amir Allawi has estimate that the cost of corruption in Iraq is up to $150 billion, much of it seized illegally over the past 18 years.

Read more: The Iraqi dinar is fine

The results are also everywhere. Baghdad is now among the worst cities in the world in which to live. Amid deteriorating security, it witnesses acts of violence daily, while levels of poverty and social inequality are at record highs, according to a report by the Spanish Muynegicios Y Economia magazine.

This legacy of chaos, devastation, and corruption stem from the illegitimate seizure of power by those waving fake revolutionary credentials, pretending to oppose dictatorship while trying to wrench control themselves.

The republic of fear, established by the Baath Party, became the republic of chaos and corruption, established by all political parties who, since 2003, sought and wielded power. They never had any plans to improve the Iraqi state because they never expected to govern. Had it not been for the Americans, they wouldn't have.

Fighting to control Iraq's wealth

The future of Iraq depends on escaping the spiral of fear, chaos, and the reality of the non-state. Until this is achieved, Iraqis do not have the luxury of choosing between alternatives.

Today's political reality indicates that the powers parallel to the state dominate the political field. That means our tragedy consists of the absence of the state and the domination of the political mafias on the joints of public life with the help of a rentier economy that turns political control into a gateway to dominate economic resources.

Whoever has the power controls the wealth. Here, the political authority does not exercise its policy on the economy as a control, management, and development tool but rather as a tool for domination and control over all national wealth.

It manages this wealth according to the logic of spoils and the distribution of benefits and privileges to followers and loyalists instead of to the citizens of the society.

What Iraq is witnessing is more dangerous than dictatorship and totalitarian regimes. Not only does it suffer from the absence of a state, it also suffers from a proliferation of non-state forces and the absence of institutions in which the state is represented.

In a dictatorship, power is centralised in the hands of the leader. In a country subject to the domination of forces parallel to the state, such as Iraq, the centres of decision-making and influence multiply, and all features of the state get swallowed up within the symbolism of political rivals.

Three possible future scenarios

What will become of the country? The future likely lies in one of three scenarios:

Status quo: A political consensus is reached to keep Iraq's governance in the hands of the same circle of actors who govern it at present. This makes the sharing of authority, influence, and state resources the point of convergence for all, including Shiites, Kurds, and Sunnis. This scenario perhaps corresponds most closely with the international community's desire for stability in Iraq, regardless of who holds power.

Structural coup: It relies on the ability of the current government to strengthen its relationship with the public and overcome the mistakes of previous governments. Its current president, Muhammad Shia al-Sudani, could be important. He promised to resolve the duality of arms issue and tackle corruption.

Return to popular protests: This was led by the Sadr movement, whose return to the streets may be prompted by the current government. While powerful, the Sadrists' ability to change the system of government from consensus to majority remains unknown. An old-fashioned coup d'etat has not been ruled out.