It was the best of
times, it was the worst of times, but in the end the results were predictable. The first of the two elections, Iraq, did have an element of suspense and surprise following the electoral win of Muqtada al-Sadr’s Saairun Alliance winning 54 seats in Parliament. While a good showing for Sadr it was not enough to secure a majority, 165 seats, in Parliament. This has left the door opened to a wide range of maneuvers to secure power that are taking place now. The next election to be discussed was the Turkish election, while there were attempts to make it appear to be an actual free and open election it lacks the drama of Iraq and was more predictable. Following President Erdogan’s call for snap elections there was much said and written that through his recent attempts to subvert Turkey’s democracy that he had opened a window for the opposition to consolidate and remove his power. This of course presupposed the existence of a democratic government in Turkey. Like Iraq the winner, the AK Party did not win a clear majority and will assume power with the help of the ultra-right wing MHP. Unlike Iraq however the AKP will not be controlled by its alliance with MHP and in fact has moved closer to an inescapable one-party dictatorship.
The results of the Iraq election are still not clear and may not be for some time. With the world, and donors, watching the Iraqi government made a valid attempt to run an open election. In the end however old habits die hard, if at all. The Fatah Party, an alliance of Shia militia under Iranian control had secured the second most sets, 47, and under the direction of the IRGC Quds force commander Qasem Soleimani have proceeded to work to build a Coalition that will be, if not under control of Tehran, very friendly to Iran. The use of electronic voting was intended to streamline the process and discourage vote fraud. Following the elections many of the losing parties cried foul and demanded a manual recount. With the Council of Representatives took it upon themselves to call for a recount, even though they had no legal authority to do so, it became apparent that regardless of the legitimate will of the people who voted the decision will be made by the power elites, many of whom would loss power if the results were sustained.
With the acquisition of the courts the recount will be done, even though after a period of time it is not yet determined when and how long it will take. What has been determined is the results will be questioned and never fully accepted. At the outset parliament had set conditions that would not recognize Peshmerga or IDP votes from the Kurdish region, this however was overturned by the courts. Other conditions however have gone forward including percentage reduction in results from polling stations as the failure to address the presence of PMF at polling stations used to discourage voter participation. The loss of paper ballots in a fire in Baghdad as well as attacks on election commission sites in disputed territories has made any results now invalid. With all of this the results must be accepted as reported in the beginning and the fact that Iran will be in charge of the Iraqi government must be accepted by Iraq as well. This of course does not hold true for the rest of the world. Donor nations may decide or be shown that the election does not in fact reflect the Iraqi demographic and world powers need not support an Iraqi military that is under the control of a foreign power and operating to the detriment of the population. Before all this however a final count must be given, and the government formed. The only other alternative is to have a new election which comes with its own set of problems.
Turkey is another story. Forgetting the AKP accidentally released the results days before the election, the activities of the government have made the election and the results illegitimate. Many of the opposition candidates are in jail as well as reporters that could cover the election for the opposition. News papers and other media outlets have been shut and polling stations moved out of reach for many, particularly in the Kurdish region. There is no surprise that Erdogan won a majority what is surprising is that the HDP won enough to be seated. This of course may well be temporary given the history of Kurdish victories. While it is not yet a rump parliament Erdogan has very little to fear in his march to complete one man control Turkey. His rule will not be disputed and we see that regardless of the existing problems all parties accepted the results.
Between the two elections the Iraqi results are the most likely to be a true reflection of popular sentiment. A rejection of the current power elites and a call for change. Regardless in the intervening time the will of the people has been subordinated to the will of the elites. The recount will, without a doubt, strengthen the Shia/Iranian parties and the government will be formed that will continue to ignore the people and the constitution. There will be strong opposition voices but they will be heard as background noise to the Iranian masters. The current upheaval in Iran however could cause major problems in Baghdad. Without money and guidance from Tehran chaos may ensue. This last will likely not be immediate but is worth a mention.
The impact of Turkey’s election however will be more immediate and likely deadly. With little to stand in the way Turkey can continue to its military adventures in Syria and Iraq and expand them without fear of internal interference. The continued crackdown on internal enemies will likewise continue unabated. This slide away from any form of democracy constitutes a greater threat to the region then the confusion in Iraq at least as far as the west should be concerned. Turkey is a NATO country and as such its actions reflect on the alliance as a whole. While there is little the other nations can do to influence the internal operations of a dictatorship there is no longer any reason to pretend it is anything but. The run up to this election should have indicated to all the type of country Turkey has become.
In Iraq the actions of the government prior to the election, to include the illegal attack on Kirkuk, as the actions following the election, attempts to disenfranchise minority populations are also good indicators to the rest of the world the direction Iraq is taking. Like many other countries in the world Iraq is, on paper, a constitutional republic. Unlike other countries the Iraqi government does not seem to see any reason to read or follow its constitution. Again there is little the world can do to impose any external control on the government in Baghdad. The one area that some leverage could be derived is in the will of the people. Iraq has shown in this past election both the peoples desire to have a say in the government and the aftermath has shown the elites have no intention in giving it to them. The US leads the call for a one Iraq but forgets its own past. The American colonist had been strong in their determination to remain part of England, only asking to be given the full rights of Englishmen. When it became apparent that they would never be treated as full citizens of the British Empire they declared and fought for those rights an independent nation. Today in Iraq we also see that a large minority does not have the full rights of Iraqi citizenship and the world must come to recognize this. If the election shows the west anything it is that the west has lost Iraq, it is time to allow what is going to happen, happen and support those who will find their own way to freedom.
As has been said by many, elections have consequences, its time to accept those consequences and react properly to them.