Analysis: Iraq’s Cabinet Reshuffle: Too Much of a Success?

AhlulBayt News Agency - According to Iraq’s new constitution, adopted after fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003, Iraq is the second West Asian nation administrated with the associative model of democracy or power-sharing system upheld by the country’s different parties and groups.

 Due to recent years’ conditions and crises that hit the country, there rose a kind of notion that the cabinet ministers should not be picked with a consideration of their party’s share in the government, rather, they have to be technocrats, namely their expertise should be taken into consideration before their nomination. But the Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has decided to merge several ministries in a bid to scale down the country’s sizable bureaucracy and at the same time set the remaining government administrations free from the ethnic and sectarian sharing system of power and move them towards meritocracy. But, due to Iraq’s diversified political and social structure, issues such as engagement of all parties and sects in the power and government posts are still taken into consideration as a basis for government formation. Choosing Sharif Ali bib al-Hussein, the last remaining member of the al-Hashemi royal family, by al-Abadi in the reshuffled cabinet in place of the Shiite Ibrahim al-Jaafari indicates the Iraqi PM’s efforts to improve relations with the Arab countries. On the other side, having in mind that the al-Abadi’s measures are in line with a reform plan presented by Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim, the leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, the reform measures would generally strengthen al-Abadi’s place in Iraq’s politics.

It looks that some differences have emerged in Iraq’s parliament over the cabinet reshuffle. Some Iraqi lawmakers want all of the ministers be changed whereas others seek a partial change in the ministerial posts. On the other hand, Haider al-Abadi’s dismissal of a majority of his cabinet’s ministers, who are linked to some political parties and factions, and bringing the technocrats in the cabinet could dig gaps as well as new ethnosectarian tussles, political tensions, protests of excluded parties and consequently a fresh round of chaos in Iraq.

What causes difference inside the Iraqi parliament between the political parties is that the parties wonder why they should stay in the parliament if they are not allowed to nominate their own candidates for ministerial posts. It should be taken into account that Iraq’s political system is a hurdle ahead of forming a sharing-free government. Iraq’s political system is parliamentary and so the cabinet rises out of parties and factions. The posts’ distribution takes place with a consideration of the number of seats secured by the political parties. Thus, it is impossible to form a government without the political parties influence, unless there would be a presidential system of governing in Iraq in the future.

Anyway, Iraq has to move out of this tense situation with cooperation of the government and the parliament, and by adopting a compromising view it should prepare the ground for change inside its administration so that it could get the chance for planning to move ahead. The reality is that in the present time Iraq is dealing with a variety of security crises. It should moves out of them; however, this is possible only if the government and the parliament agree upon collaboration.

In the current conditions, the Iraqi people, religious figures, and army all seek obliteration of terrorism specifically the ISIS terrorist organization to pave the way for relative improvement of the country’s political and economic circumstances. Should the reforms made by PM al-Abadi are approved by the Iraqi parliament and the political groups and parties, they would produce a political stability in the country, which is now desperately needed by Iraq more than any other time. So, as the Iraqi PM maintained, the implementation of these reforms in Iraq would influence positively the anti-terror battle under way in the country. A united and strong Iraq develops larger potentials for fighting terrorism. Furthermore, a stable administration would prepare the ground for economic recovery.

All in all, it seems that today’s Iraq is in need of competent, expert and dutiful administrators who eye Iraq’s development without ethnic and party considerations. But such an approach for the time being is ideal and like a dream. With a regard to the relations of different Iraqi parties and groups, it does not seem that they accede to impairment of their place in the political system of power. So, it is too difficult to consider a promising outlook for PM al-Abadi’s reforms as implementation of them in Iraq’s political system would be hampered by serious stumbling blocks. The former experiences proved that reform plans that reduced the political parties’ role in determination of government ministers have been met with failure. So, we would possibly observe the Iraqi political parties and the ethnosectarian groups continue their scuffles and demands for shares in the power.

On the other side, the Americans, who established the power-sharing system in Iraq, would come against the reform plan should it runs counter to their interests




/129