Iraq's political profiteers vie for influence over parliament speaker selection

Institutions hijacked

These political conflicts infiltrated state institutions that should be apolitical. Even judicial bodies have become embroiled. For example, the Federal Supreme Court ordered Parliament's Speaker, Mohamed al-Halbousi, to step down after being charged with forgery. But what happened after illustrates just how little weight and deference Iraq's institutions carry.

While the ruling to remove Halbousi should have turned him into a political pariah, instead, he continues to be hosted and welcomed by various political parties and is closely involved in the process of nominating his own successor. This shows the dynamics at work in Iraq's political landscape, where interests and alliances supersede the law.

Selecting a new Speaker is both a constitutional and a political process, but the power struggle between the Shiite Coordination Framework and Sunni political factions hampers it. The disruption is causing legislative delays. Some Shiite leaders believe that having a Shiite First Deputy as Speaker would let them pass legislation and assert control over parliament. Others say the role of Speaker should be held by someone without political ambition, with Shiite leaders accused of arrogance.

For his part, Prime Minister Mohammed Shia' Al Sudani and his parliamentary allies prefer to select a Speaker from the Sunni circle to establish an alliance and secure a second term, but the Sunni political forces in Iraq are fragmented. This has let Shiite leaders impose their will and obstruct the selection. They do not want new Sunni leadership to leverage the symbolic significance of the Speaker's role to undermine their opponents and reject Shiite candidates. For now, there is a deadlock.

Having previously accused critics of blackmail, Al Sudani and his government now face eavesdropping, espionage, and manipulation allegations. The case has not been heard in court, but statements from allies seem to infer the prime minister's involvement.

The focus is not on the credibility of these accusations but on their use as tools for political defamation in the ongoing struggle within the Coordination Framework, Iraq's top political coalition for Shiite parties. In a curious case of self-injury, they publicly assert that Al Sudani's government is their own while undermining it with spying allegations. Yet the government is not alone in facing allegations of wrongdoing.

In 2004, the Commission of Integrity was established in Iraq to fight corruption using legal means. Article 102 of the Constitution designates this as an "independent" governmental body under the Iraqi Parliament. Commission head Judge Haider Hanoun, responsible for combating corruption in a country notorious for it, recently raised concerns about the institution itself. "We are vulnerable," he said. The Integrity Commission is vulnerable."

There have long been allegations that the Commission is used to pursue personal vendettas. Hanoun was featured in an unverified audio recording discussing mediation in real estate and money transfer cases, which led to criticism of the judiciary and of Hanoun's appointment.

Political free-for-all

The trade in accusations between the Commission and the wider judiciary, together with questionable appointments based on personal relationships, illustrates how Iraq's politics have become personal. The country's governance can seem a lesser priority.

The political sphere now feels like the kind of political free-for-all described by Hobbes, with state institutions dragged into the power struggle and having to contend with the conspiracies and conflicts of the various factions.

While debates should focus on how to run a modern country, the nation's framework is still run by vested interests—tribes, sects, regions, etc.—that pre-date the state. As a result, state institutions have become breeding grounds for social conflict rather than impartial bodies to settle disputes. Appeasing factions has almost become the purpose of the state itself at the expense of national interest.