Iraqis 'losing faith' in elections amid political boycotts and vote-buying allegations
These developments are raising doubts whether the November 11 vote, Iraq's sixth parliamentary election since the 2003 US-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein 's regime, will be free, fair and truly representative or just another step towards reinforcing the grip of dominant parties.
The most recent blow came from former prime minister Haider Al Abadi 's Victory Coalition, which announced this week that it would not field any candidates in the election. It cited concerns over political spending, the use of state resources to influence voters and a lack of legal safeguards against fraud.
'The Victory Coalition refuses to take part in an election that is based on political money and lacking firm enforcement of legal regulations to prevent manipulation, vote-buying, misuse of public and foreign funds and the exploitation of state resources,' it said.
It said there was an 'urgent need to reform the electoral process, as it is the pillar of democracy and the key to increasing voter participation and enabling the election of the most competent candidates away from any illegitimate or unethical influences that could harm the integrity of the results'.
The coalition, however, says it will remain part of the National State Forces Alliance which is led by Shiite cleric Ammar Al Hakim and presents itself as a moderate and a reformist political group that seeks to move beyond the sectarian divisions. It will support those 'we believe are competent' within that alliance, it added.
Although the Victory Coalition is not an influential political group, it is considered one of the few moderate voices inside the Co-ordination Framework, the largest parliamentary group dominated by Iran-backed political factions and militias. Mr Al Abadi served a four-year term as prime minister from September 2014, a tenure that was marked by the US-led war to end the ISIS invasion of Iraq.
He joins a growing list of political figures who are opting out of the November election. A number of independent candidates and smaller reformist movements have also said they will not participate this year, citing similar concerns over fraud, violence and the erosion of electoral competitiveness.
Their stance echoes the position taken by the influential Shiite cleric Moqtada Al Sadr, who announced a total withdrawal from the political process when he failed to form a majority government with only Sunni and Kurdish parties, after winning 73 of the 329 seats in parliament in the 2021 polls.
Mr Al Sadr reiterated his decision to boycott the election in a handwritten message posted on his X account on Friday with the hashtag #We_Are_Boycotting.
He said justice could only be upheld by 'bringing all weapons under state control, dismantling militias, strengthening Iraq's army and security forces, achieving complete independence and urgently seeking reforms and accountability'.
A western diplomat described the decision by some political players − mainly moderates − to pull out of the elections as 'worrying'.
He noted that the lack of participation and a trend towards low turnouts do not bode well for Iraq. 'It's not good for a democratic country,' he said.
'Lost faith'
The boycotts come amid mounting allegations that biometric voter ID cards – intended to combat election fraud – are being sold. Activists have flagged instances of people, particularly in poorer communities, being approached with offers of money in exchange for their cards.
In a voice note circulated on social media, a woman promised free minor plastic surgery for those who present voter cards. A delivery company threatened employees in a message on their private chat group that they would lose their jobs if they failed to bring their voter cards and those of their relatives. In a video posted on Facebook, a man identified as an aide to a politician in Salaheddin province says anyone seeking jobs or favours from him would have to give him their voter cards.
Alarmed by the latest trends, Iraq's Independent High Electoral Commission, has said it is 'taking the necessary measures to prevent any violations that threaten the integrity of the electoral process'.
It said those responsible would face legal action and exclusion from the elections.
'The sale or purchase of biometric voter cards, or the attempt to do so, and the exploitation of state resources for electoral purposes are electoral crimes punishable by law,' it said.
There have been reports in Iraqi media that government vehicles and buildings are being used in efforts to woo voters, including the use of a school that prompted the Education Minister to order an investigation.
Despite technology introduced to reduce electoral violations, such as the introduction of biometric voter IDs and the immediate transmission of vote tallies from counting centres to the electoral authority's headquarters via satellite, the 2021 election saw a record low turnout of 41 per cent. It was followed by months of political deadlock over the formation of a new government until the Co-ordination Framework mustered enough backing to install Mohammed Shia Al Sudani as Prime Minister a year later.
The 2021 election was held under a new electoral law adopted by parliament in response to pro-reform protests that began in October 2019. The law divided each province into electoral districts with the winner being the party with the highest number of votes, which gave new independent parties – many of which were supported by protesters – a better chance of winning seats.
Under the previous system, each of the 18 provinces was a single electoral district, and seats were apportioned based on a complicated formula that favoured established parties.
However, parliament reversed these changes in March 2023, once again making it more difficult for independent candidates and small parties to compete.
Now, the sense of public disillusionment is even deeper. Many of the young protesters who filled Iraq's streets in 2019 have either exited the political scene or left the country altogether.
'People have lost faith,' Mustafa Majeed, 42, who took part in the 2019 protests in the southern city of Nasiriyah, told The National.
'They don't see elections as a means to improve their lives, they see them as a mechanism to maintain the same corrupt structure.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
42 minutes ago
- The National
Introducing my son to Lebanon helped me heal my relationship with home
As the wheels touch down on the tarmac at Beirut's Rafic Hariri International Airport, my wife and I turn to our 20-month-old son, Dia, kiss his soft head and whisper: 'Welcome home.' Then we both cry. It's his first time in Lebanon – a trip long delayed by an interminable war. Like many Lebanese born in the diaspora, my relationship to the country has always been complicated. Raised abroad, I absorbed it through Sunday meals at Lebanese restaurants in London, family stories and summer visits. As a teenager and young adult, I would go on to live there for 10 years, turning it into a site of belonging and often heartbreak. For the past five years, I've been estranged from it. I had seen a lot during my years in Lebanon, but nothing broke me like the August 4 Beirut port explosion. I felt I lost too much that day. I almost lost my father, who was in a building by the port. We couldn't locate him for hours. I lost far less important things – our company's brand-new office, my car, work projects. After that trip, I left broken. Something had snapped in my already tense relationship with a country that was often exhausting to live in, however much I loved it. Since then, I've only returned for work, family emergencies or deaths. My relationship with Lebanon calcified into something unpleasant. But something shifted on this trip. I came back as a different person. I came back as a father. Lebanon today feels hopeful but precarious – a country both limping out of war and still staggering from the collapse of 2019. The streets are tired. Shoots of wild grass protrude from the pavements and highways. I have become obsessed with these unkempt public roads. They remind me of the way Lebanon looked at the end of the civil war. The country has the air of an aristocratic home fallen into disrepair – once proud, now crumbling, its residents unable to afford its upkeep. But still full of life and stories. But none of that matters when I see my son here. To see how he belongs to this place. He's surrounded by doting grandparents. Even the neighbours beam when they see him. He devours zaatar and stuffed vine leaves. He's wide-eyed with curiosity. As Lebanese, our link to the motherland can often be tied to the kind of nostalgia these scenes can evoke. Nostalgia is a powerful, sometimes dangerous thing. It led many in our diaspora to invest life savings in Lebanon out of duty or hope, only to watch them vanish in the banking collapse. I used to be so weary of that dangerous form of nostalgia that led people to be irrational. But I find myself understanding it this time. For me, returning to Lebanon has always carried a hint of regression. Like anyone revisiting their parents' home, you slip back into old habits, old roles. You unlearn everything that's happened in the intervening years. But this time is different. There's no regression – only transformation. I'm here not as a son, but as a father. I'm not trying to make sense of my place, I'm building a bridge for my son between his heritage and his future. In a recent therapy session, while speaking about my connection to the Mediterranean, I had a surprising realisation: it wasn't the sea I was so anchored to. It was the mountain. I wanted to see if Dia had the same connection. On a visit to Jaj – a village 1,200 metres above the historic coastal town of Byblos – my wife's aunt left some cherries unpicked in the garden just for Dia. He picked them himself, dropping them into a plastic tub with glee. Nour noticed the cherries at the top had been pecked at. 'The top of the tree is for the birds,' her aunt said. 'The bottom is for us.' One simple sentence. Centuries of understanding how to live with the land, not just on it. And now, my son is learning that wisdom. And through him, so am I. Back in Beirut, we realise the city is not exactly toddler-friendly. Pavements are often a suggestion. When they do exist, they're broken, cluttered, blocked by scooters and cars. Electrical cables dangle from poles. It's whatever the opposite of baby-proof is. One afternoon, Nour suggests we might find more space to roam by taking Dia to my alma mater – the American University of Beirut. I haven't set foot there in years. I don't often reminisce about my time there, or much else. But walking through the main gate feels like a reckoning. I tell the security guard I remember my student number – a strange fact to recall from 2001. He pulls up my record, and there it is: my old ID photo. I barely recognise the boy in the image – fresh-faced and naive. Closer in age to Dia than to me now. I'm carrying my son and pointing at the ID photo on the screen, wondering if he'll recognise me. He smiles. Maybe he does. Maybe he's just happy to be here too. As he runs around the grounds of the 19th-century campus, I remember something Nour told me recently – about mycelium networks that connect trees underground, allowing forests to share resources and nutrients. That's how I feel, watching my son plant his feet on this soil. He's connected to people he's never met, to land he's never seen. And in watching him, I realise I'm part of that network too, in a way I haven't felt in years.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
What happens if Iran were to acquire the bomb?
The recent attacks on Iran and its nuclear facilities shocked the global community. While the world watches closely for further developments and hopes for a diplomatic resolution to this crisis, the attacks on Iran and its next steps will have a profound impact on the nuclear non-proliferation regime. The existing nuclear non-proliferation regime, established to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, is based on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), negotiated in 1968. It enjoys nearly universal membership and was instrumental in preventing the acquisition of nuclear weapons by another two dozen states, as was predicted before the treaty was put in place. Iran, a party to the NPT, threatened to withdraw even before the attacks. If Iran were to leave the NPT and focus on resurrecting its nuclear programme to build nuclear weapons, it would deal a major blow to the non-proliferation regime and its credibility. Moreover, regardless of Iran's decision about its membership in the NPT or pursuit of nuclear weapons, the damage to the efforts to curtail the proliferation of nuclear weapons has already been done. The 21st century has witnessed several attacks by nuclear-armed states against non-nuclear-weapon states, including the 2003 invasion of Iraq, with the rationale of preventing the alleged acquisition of nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction. Some countries, like Libya, agreed to give up the pursuit of nuclear weapons and were nonetheless attacked later. Ukraine, which inherited a nuclear weapons arsenal from the Soviet Union, gave them back to Russia and joined the NPT as a non-nuclear-weapon state. Many in Ukraine today ask themselves whether the decision to forgo nuclear weapons was the right one, and whether Ukraine would have been attacked if it had chosen to keep them. Countries also look at North Korea, which left the NPT and rushed to build nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching the US as a deterrent against military attacks. So far, this strategy has worked, and North Korea continues to expand and enhance its nuclear arsenal, proudly exhibiting it to ensure the US and others get the message. With the waning reliability of US commitments to its allies, some states may decide that they can only protect themselves with the ultimate deterrent – nuclear weapons. In South Korea, for example, public opinion already favours the nuclear weapons option. Iran's nuclear programme has made countries in the Middle East and beyond nervous for decades. We've heard disconcerting statements from Turkey and Saudi Arabia regarding a potential pursuit of nuclear weapons if Iran were to acquire the bomb. Would attacks on Iran and its nuclear programme shift the calculus of some of these countries regarding their own nuclear ambitions, serving as a catalyst for further nuclear proliferation? Iran insists on the peaceful nature of its programme. However, several elements of it were developed without a particular need for an existing or even planned nuclear energy programme and have been a source of proliferation concern. Iran was on the verge of having everything, including significant stocks of highly enriched uranium, but the bomb itself. It played the nuclear hedging game for over two decades but vastly expanded and accelerated it in the last couple of years. Future proliferators will take note of the risks posed by the ambiguity of their intentions while acquiring nuclear technologies and capabilities that could lead to weaponisation. It remains to be seen whether Iran will leave the NPT and focus on resurrecting its nuclear programme. Iran has already moved forward with the suspension of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, a key component of the non-proliferation regime that inspects nuclear activities and facilities and is a legal obligation under the NPT. It would be in its own interest to return to full co-operation with the IAEA and offer full transparency of its nuclear programme. Ultimately, further proliferation in the region, ignited by Iran's withdrawal from the NPT and pursuit of nuclear weapons, would be against Iran's own interests. Beyond a diplomatic solution to the existing crisis, there are several steps that NPT states could pursue to prevent further proliferation in the Middle East and beyond. One of these is an explicit legal obligation or regional agreement not to pursue national programmes for uranium enrichment and reprocessing of spent fuel – two critical elements of the nuclear fuel cycle capable of producing fissile material for nuclear weapons. In this regard, the UAE stands as an example of steering clear of any ambiguity in its nuclear power programme. In its agreement on nuclear co-operation with the US (the so-called 123 agreement), it took on an obligation not to pursue these sensitive technologies. Another option is for any new facility involving enrichment and reprocessing to be established as an international or multilateral facility subject to international safeguards. One could argue that robust regional and international co-operation on nuclear energy and its peaceful applications could eventually pave the way for co-operation, transparency and trust-building among countries in the region. Another way to alleviate proliferation concerns in the Middle East is the establishment of a regional verification arrangement to supplement IAEA safeguards, modelled on the Brazilian-Argentine Agency for Accounting and Control of Nuclear Materials (ABACC). Such an arrangement could build confidence in the peaceful nature of nuclear activities. In recent years, interest in nuclear power as a carbon-neutral energy source has significantly increased, including in the Middle East. It holds the promise of reliable and clean energy, with uses in various other applications beyond electricity generation, including desalination of water and many other benefits. For this promise to be realised, the NPT must hold firm, and the system of checks on proliferation must remain in place.
Arabian Business
an hour ago
- Arabian Business
UAE delivers 1 billion meals to people in need: Sheikh Mohammed
The UAE has delivered more than one billion meals to people in need as part of a major humanitarian project. Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President, Prime Minister and Ruler of Dubai, announced the successful completion of the humanitarian project launched in Ramadan 2022 to provide one billion meals to those in need worldwide. Sheikh Mohammed said: 'Three years ago we launched a humanitarian project aimed at distributing 1 billion meals to those in need globally. The project has fully achieved its goal this month, distributing one billion meals across 65 countries. UAE 1 Billion Meals project 'An additional 260 million meals will be distributed over the course of next year. We have also established sustainable real estate endowments to ensure the continued provision of food aid in the years to come. 'We thank God for the ability to give, for the chance to fulfil our promise, and for the blessing of this good nation, whose kindness has touched the world. 'May God protect the UAE and its people, and may they always be a symbol of good and generosity.' The 1 Billion Meals initiative built upon the success of the previous 10 Million Meals and 100 Million Meals campaigns launched in 2020 and 2021, respectively. As the largest food aid initiative of its kind in the region, the 1 Billion Meals initiative aims to provide nutritional support to underprivileged individuals, families, women, and children, reflecting the UAE's inclusive approach to humanitarianism, which offers assistance and aid to all communities without discrimination. To ensure its long-term impact and the continued distribution of meals worldwide, the 1 Billion Meals Endowment initiative was launched in 2023 as the largest sustainable food aid endowment fund. Mohammed Al Gergawi, Minister of Cabinet Affairs and Secretary-General of the Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Global Initiatives (MBRGI), stated that the MBRGI, guided by the vision of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, mobilises resources and efforts to improve food security in underserved communities. He attributed the success of the 1 Billion Meals initiative to the significant community engagement and generous contributions from individuals and organisations across the UAE. Al Gergawi highlighted the vital role of partners, including UN agencies and regional and local organisations, in implementing the initiative, enabling it to deliver one billion meals by the end of July 2025, with plans to reach the pledged total of 1.26 billion meals by the end of 2026. Al Gergawi said: 'We remain committed to strengthening our strategic partnerships locally, regionally and globally to support those most in need and create sustainable solutions to address food challenges. 'The MBRGI's commitment to eradicating hunger extends beyond providing meals; it encompasses empowering communities to develop comprehensive strategies to combat poverty and malnutrition. 'This aligns with the MBRGI's vision for sustainable development and is being actively pursued by a wide range of UN agencies and regional and local partners.' The 1 Billion Meals initiative partnered with UN organisations through two main avenues: Direct food aid through distributing food parcels, meals, supplements, smart vouchers, etc Sustainable projects empowering individuals and families to become self-sufficient. These include empowering farmers and creating jobs in food production and other relevant sectors The 1 Billion Meals initiative recorded remarkable achievements in collaboration with several UN partners, including the UN World Food Programme (WFP) – the initiative's largest partner in the direct food aid avenue through the distribution of food parcels and smart vouchers. The UNHCR's contribution to the initiative focused on refugees and displaced communities by delivering food parcels, vouchers, and sustainable projects. The 1 Billion Meals initiative collaborated with the UN Trust Fund (UNITLIFE), which focused on sustainable agriculture and women's empowerment in food production. It also collaborated with the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), which champions international efforts to eradicate hunger. The Food Banking Regional Network, a key partner of the initiative under direct food aid, distributed food parcels through local food banks. Life for Relief and Development helped provide food aid to low-income families and individuals through the delivery of food parcels. The Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Humanitarian and Charity Establishment is a strategic partner of the initiative, distributing food parcels in the UAE and other countries. The Emirates Food Bank focused on supporting low-income families and individuals within the UAE. MBRGI, the region's largest organisation in the field of charity, humanitarian and aid work, invested over AED2.2bn ($599m), impacting 149 million people across 118 countries in 2024. The impact encompassed MBRGI's five pillars: Humanitarian Aid and Relief Healthcare and Disease Control Spreading Education and Knowledge Innovation and Entrepreneurship Empowering Communities The Humanitarian Aid and Relief pillar encompasses emergency relief during crises and disasters, as well as sustainable development projects and services. Launched in 2015, MBRGI consolidated over 30 humanitarian and development initiatives and organisations supported by His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum for over two decades. Focusing on underserved communities and vulnerable populations, the MBRGI aims to foster hope and address pressing global challenges, particularly in less fortunate regions. It invests in human capital by empowering individuals, honing skills, and building a qualified workforce to drive development. The MBRGI also prioritises improving education, combating poverty and disease, and promoting tolerance and coexistence.
