There is still no clear winner (HUSSEIN FALEH/AFP via Getty Images)
![](https://unherd.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/David-Patrikarakos-100x100.jpg)
The man approaches me, holds up his index finger and smiles. He points across the wide boulevard toward a lamppost, on which dangles a fluttering poster of a local politician here in central Erbil, the capital of the Kurdistan region of Iraq. It’s 10 October — election day —and the man’s fingertip is coated in the violet phosphorous-based ink that signifies his vote has been cast.
Unremovable, the ink fades from the skin in around 48 hours or so. It’s become something of a status symbol; the Iraqi democratic process given corporeal form, quite literally imprinted onto the bodies of those who subscribe to it.
A fortnight on from the elections and, with no clear winner, the horse-trading to form a new government is only just beginning. It will be a fraught process — for many of the reasons that the wider Middle East is fraught, too: sectarianism, corruption, civil strife and, of course, foreign meddling. These are bad enough. But the problems that strafed Iraq and the wider region throughout the 20th century are now galvanised by one of the 21st century’s most powerful forces: digitally powered disinformation.
Understand the Iraqi elections and understand, in miniature, at least some of the wider forces driving instability across the Middle East. The electoral process is theoretically simple: the people elect 329 members of Parliament, who in turn elect the President of Iraq and confirm the Prime Minister. Whichever party or bloc gets 165 seats forms a government. Given Iraq’s fractured polity, this never really happens — and this time was no exception.
The largest party, with 72 seats, is the Sadrist Movement, led by the scowling and barking Shi’ite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Sadr comes from a famous clerical family and his name carries huge weight among Iraq’s Shia, whom he led against US forces following 2003’s Operation Iraqi Freedom. He is a rare animal in Iraqi politics: a Shi’ite leader independent — at least rhetorically — of Iran.
The other major Shia forces are former Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki’s State of Law party, which got 35 seats, and then the Al-Fatah Alliance, which saw its vote drop to just 15 seats (from 48 in the 2018 election). Officially, its leaders have close ties to Iran, but most Iraqi Sunnis — and indeed many Shia (plus most of the region) — consider them to be a straight-out Iranian proxy. Other Shia parties include the militia (and designated terror group) Kata’ib Hezbollah, which recently formed the Huqooq party, and which got one vote; and the Victory Alliance of Haider al-Abadi (another former PM), which got four seats. As ever post-2003, the Iraq Shia, so long oppressed by former leader Saddam Hussein, remain politically dominant.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeMaybe the 21st century will be the century of disinformation. We have enough of it here with all the environmental apocalyptic fare shoved in our faces.
I keep getting a recurring thought that Iraq might have been better off sticking with Saddam. Comparing the loss of life under him with the last 20 years, say; or the fact that under him there were 1 million Christians in Iraq but now that number is literally decimated. Can these countries with significant tribalism and which were artificially created, really cope with democracy: ie the willing submission of the minority? Even the US now seems to find that difficult.
Might the same be said of Libya which remains a mess? Gaddafi seemed to have been reigned in internationally before he was toppled.
Just thoughts – not necessarily answers.
P.S. US disinformation:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yW2LpFkVfYk
Interesting YouTube find PeterLR. The sort of stupid US liberal whites shown here who consider they are right-on anti-racists are full of racist assumptions about blacks and as much a cause of racial conflict as those who are happy to display their bigotry without claiming to be anti-racist.
Of course you might have mentioned this YouTube video as a set up video designed to show anti-racist liberals as racist idiots. Who knows?
Of course this is true. It is a Western belief that it was all for some moral good. Even as Saddam and Gaddafi worked with Western powers they often acted independently of Western interests. This is why they were targeted. They understood imperialism and often toed the line to prevent conflict but believe it or not sometimes they even acted in their peoples own interest. Particularly Gaddafi. Sadr is a populist and is therefore hated by Western leaders with a particular passion. He is seen as being un-corruptible at last by his supporters. I see him as kind of a potential Nasrallah figure. Nasrallah is one the few truly great leaders of the middle east. This is of course a very unpopular opinion if you are a citizen of the West.