Iraq and Afghanistan

Today’s paper reports that the Ayatollah Sistani is again expressing his concerns about the planned elections. He seems to have two fears. First, he objects to the fact that the major political parties, all groups that had an existence outside the country during Saddam’s day (but not only outside), are meeting together to decide on a common ticket that will be presented to the people without offering the chance for others, particularly local leaders, to run effectively for office. Their argument is that this will mean a more unified country after the elections. His argument is that it will mean a less legitimate process. Second, he is worried that all the talk about security being too poor for the elections to occur is just a pretext to put them off. He thinks they should go ahead where there is enough peace, and that means most of the country in his view. (This is a view I share.)

One never knows why the Ayatollah injects himself into the process in this way. But leaving aside the obviously important “real concerns”, he probably also feels a need to counter the thought that al-Sadr is the only Shi’a leader that stands up for the masses. He wants to show that he is there for them, that he will not allow the shenanigans of the foreigners and the Sunnis to deny the Shi’a masses their right to rule Iraq.

Regardless of his reasoning, one can draw a positive conclusion from his statements (as usual cloudily expressed through a representative). This is that he is taking the process seriously. He still wants, as he has said in the past, for a legitimate vote to take place. He still believes it can. He wants to have a Shi’a run Iraq and believes that if the present process is carried through on schedule, this will result. He is suspicious, or wants to show that he is suspicious, of the Allawi government and the Americans. But if he holds their feet to the fire, all will be well. (He must see more bright lights than many commentators do.)