全球智库信息集成服务系统

One decade after the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime, violence and tensions between Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds continue to threaten Iraq’s stability and fragile democracy. The political elite have failed to develop an inclusive system of government, and internal divides have been reinforced by the repercussions of the Arab Spring, especially the effects of the largely Sunni uprising against the Syrian regime and the reinforcement of transnational sectarianism. To prevent further fragmentation or the emergence of a new authoritarian regime, Iraq needs a political compact based less on sectarian identities and more on individual citizens. 

The Many Identities of Iraq

• The approach to nation building in Iraq has focused more on finding communal representatives than on overcoming communal divides. 
   
• Sectarianism is entrenched in the rules and practices of the political process. The state apparatus is dominated by Shias, and institutions are fiefdoms of conflicting parties competing for power, resources, and status. 
   
• Shia Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has consolidated power, which has alarmed his Shia rivals but has not led them to break sectarian ranks. 
   
• Sunnis feel increasingly marginalized and are radicalizing, providing extremist groups with an ideal environment for mobilization and action. 
   
• Tensions are increasing between those who want to consolidate power in a strong executive branch (led by Maliki) and those who want more decentralization (first and foremost the Kurds).
   
• Both Maliki and Sunni leaders remain focused on mobilizing their constituencies rather than bridging the gap between communities. Identity politics and sectarian differences take center stage, with the Sunni-Shia divide deepening. 

Implications for Iraq’s Future 

Addressing Sunni feelings of alienation is crucial. To build legitimacy and stability, the Shia-dominated state needs to launch a serious reconciliation plan.

The flaws in the political system must be addressed. The current electoral system, which favors competition in large constituencies, could be replaced with one based on small districts. Also needed are significant amendments to the constitution, new laws for political parties and resource management, and decentralization of power based on geography rather than sectarian and ethnic identities. 

The political transformation that Iraq needs is unlikely in the near term. Maliki’s opponents have not articulated a clear vision for the future, and no powerful international broker is pushing for change. If Maliki stays in power after the April 2014 general election, the transformation will be especially slow, with sectarian divisions bound to deepen and authoritarianism based on rentierism and the politics of exclusion likely to become further entrenched. 

Introduction

Rivalry between the Shia majority and the Sunni minority in Iraq has been at the center of political conflict in the state since then president Saddam Hussein fell in 2003.¹  Sectarian tensions have hindered state-building processes and destabilized the country. But the Iraqi government has not made a clear attempt to overcome these divides and build a common national identity. In fact, many actions taken to date have only served to further fragment the struggling state. 

Historically, the Sunni-Shia divide was caused by disagreements on political, theological, and doctrinal issues, but its modern expression is driven by competition for power, resources, and status. Political relations have increasingly been dominated by the idea of communal representation as opposed to citizens’ representation, which has exacerbated rather than eased existing divisions. 

The Iraqi government has not made a clear attempt to overcome sectarian divides and build a common national identity.

The institutionalization of sectarian identities has led to conflicts over the status, size, borders, and power of each community. These conflicts have had a destabilizing effect, especially when they have legitimized the actions of violent groups that claim to represent their communities. Iraq’s significant dependence on oil as its main source of revenue has further exacerbated these conflicts because there is no clear formula for managing the resource. 

Sectarian conflicts are accompanied by a type of systemic polarization caused by the rising authoritarianism of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The prime minister has managed to consolidate his power, marginalize the parliament and independent institutions, control the military and security apparatuses, subjugate the judiciary, and expand his political patronage at the expense of his rivals. While this has alarmed his Shia detractors, it has not led them to break sectarian ranks. Maliki still commands the largest Shia constituency and is expected to maintain that position after the election, although it is unclear how large his constituency will be. 

Without question, Iraq remains divided. Sectarianism has become an instrument used by political entrepreneurs, with mutual suspicions and communal mobilization influencing the behavior of a political elite looking to create constituencies and rally popular support. This is particularly true during electoral seasons, when leaders adopt confrontational discourse to win over supporters. The division of political constituencies into the three major sectarian and ethnic communities—Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish—will characterize the upcoming parliamentary election on April 30 as well.

More than eighty years after the creation of the modern Iraqi state, some sense of Iraqi nationalism has developed among the majority of the country’s Arab population. But the mere idea of national community has not been sufficient to unite the country, which still lacks a truly national narrative that can bridge sectarian divides. Different segments of society have different historical memories and narratives about what Iraq is or should be. The leadership’s failure to combine these strands into a single and inclusive national principle reinforces sectarian divisions and intercommunal boundaries.

To address the country’s major divisions, Iraqis need to undertake a significant review of the rules governing the country’s current political system. Emphasis must be shifted to citizens and away from communities. Real change will require significant amendments to the Iraqi constitution and electoral system as well as new laws on political parties and resource management. Power should become less elitist, more decentralized, and more reflective of people’s needs. 

Maliki still commands the largest Shia constituency and is expected to maintain that position after the election, although it is unclear how large his constituency will be.

But this transformation is unlikely to happen in the near future, especially if Maliki stays in power. The lack of a clear vision among his opponents and the absence of a powerful international broker will also hamper progress. If current trends continue, the more likely scenario is a continuation of sectarian divisions and the emergence of a new authoritarianism in Baghdad based on the politics of exclusion. 

Deep Divisions

The Sunni-Shia divide in Iraq stems from multiple geopolitical, social, and cultural transformations. 

The establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979 introduced a new system of government based on Shia theology and altered the balance of power in the region, creating an ideological umbrella for disenfranchised Shia communities. This helped consolidate the Shia community in Iraq and its sense of a distinct identity.

Among Iraqi opposition groups, Shia Islamist organizations have grown stronger, more organized, and more ideologically equipped to mobilize social sectors. Political and social dynamics in the last four decades, such as the extremely oppressive and exclusivist nature of former president Saddam Hussein’s regime and increasing religiosity, have weakened secular and liberal parties. 

Iraq is now viewed as a society composed of ethnic and sectarian communities, which calls into question the very idea of “Iraqism.” Under the U.S. occupation, which began in 2003, institutions were developed to administer the transitional period between the regime of Saddam Hussein and the establishment of a new government. But attempts to form a state faced many challenges. A conflict emerged about which “group” would have the biggest share of power, which community would be dominant, and which national narrative would prevail. 

For those who adhered to the idea of nationalism as the highest political value, the new nation-building process was unfavorably interpreted as aimed at fragmenting the country. For others, it was a return to the “original sin,” an attempt to “rebuild” the nation through a stronger base of legitimacy than by drawing lines on a map. 

The new political system was a compromise between the idea that an Iraqi nation exists independently of its subcommunities and the idea that the Iraqi nation is nothing but the total of its subcommunities. The contradictory effects of these two currents influenced the constitutional process, political conflicts, and social dynamics.

The prevailing nation-building paradigm has portrayed Iraq as a multicultural society whose communities need to develop an inclusive system of governing. This runs contrary to the classical concept of nation building, which was dominated by a nationalist, integrationist, top-down approach that entails strengthening a hegemonic center and marginalizing local and communal identities. 

To address the country’s major divisions, Iraqis need to undertake a significant review of the rules governing the country’s current political system. Power should become less elitist, more decentralized, and more reflective of people’s needs.

Although the constitution did not explicitly stipulate that power would be distributed according to communities, the practices that have prevailed in Iraq have further validated sectarian identity as a political category. The approach has focused more on finding communal representatives than overcoming communal divides. The three main political positions in the country were split up among the three major communities, with the position of president reserved for the Kurds, the position of prime minister (the most powerful in Iraq) for the Shia, and the position of speaker of the parliament for the Sunnis. And the electoral systems, which are based on proportional representation and party lists, have enhanced political sectarianism. 

The constitution was negotiated by the Shia United Iraqi Alliance and the Kurdish parties, with nominal Sunni representation. Shia Islamists and Kurdish ethnonationalists set the tone and portrayed Iraq as three separate and homogeneous communities. This tendency was encouraged by the fact that Saddam’s regime was dominated by Sunnis, and it oppressed and excluded Shias and Kurds, which nurtured the narratives of Shia and Kurdish victimhood and has led their parties to seek to consolidate power. 

Shia Consolidation of Power

The Shia community is not a monolithic force. Groups within the community compete with one another for power. Shia parties returning from exile, such as the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI, previously known as the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution) and Dawa, had a limited support base in Iraq, which led them to use sectarianism and communal fears to create new constituencies. Their discourse emphasized majority rule, devictimization, and preventing the emergence of a new dictatorship.² 

Shia mainstream political actors have been concerned with securing proportional representation in the leadership and within state institutions. But Nouri al-Maliki very successfully consolidated his power and the power of his supporters.  

Maliki was selected as prime minister in 2006, and for two years, he seemed like a weak prime minister who headed a deeply divided government. In those years, violence was rampant and the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) were unable to enforce the rule of law. 

In 2008, Maliki led a military campaign against the Mahdi Army, a paramilitary force created by Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, which at the time controlled Basra, Iraq’s main port and oil-producing province. He managed to force Sadr to withdraw his militia and, as a result, appeared to be a strong leader, which most Iraqis desired. This coincided with the success of the U.S.-backed Awakening groups, which were provincial security-building coalitions formed in 2008 among tribesmen in Sunni areas, in defeating al-Qaeda in Anbar and several Sunni areas, consequently deescalating sectarian violence. 

Investing in these gains, Maliki started repositioning himself as a “state builder” whose main concern was to establish the rule of law and restore the state’s power. He adopted a more defiant and confident discourse, criticizing the ethnic and sectarian apportionment of power and, particularly, those who “opposed the government from within.” In 2009, he formed the State of Law Coalition, distancing himself from the broader Shia community and managing to achieve a momentous victory in provincial elections.

The prime minister emphasized Shia dominance in state institutions and has changed the dynamics of Shia politics. In his second term, Maliki took advantage of deficits in power-sharing agreements. Using the powerful patronage available to him as chief executive, he pursued a policy of “divide and rule” in dealing with other parties. He filled vacant positions in the military and administration with his loyalists and augmented the powers of his office and of networks related to him personally, thereby creating a kind of “shadow state” within the government. He gave more influence to independent commissions such as the de-Baathification committee, the Communication and Media Commission, the Iraqi Media Network, the Central Bank of Iraq, and the Commission of Integrity. He managed to greatly subjugate the federal court and forge an alliance with its chief that helped him encircle his opponents and weaken their ability to check his power through the parliament. The fact that Iraq is a rentier state and the Iraqi economy is largely dependent on oil revenue has also tended to empower the executive branch and those forces that seek to establish a more centralized state. 

Maliki’s ability to consolidate power sent warning signals to his Shia rivals and forced Ammar al-Hakim, the leader of the ISCI, and Sadr to overcome the traditional competition between their families and work together to face Maliki. Sadr has become a fierce critic of the prime minister and described Maliki’s actions as “dictatorial.” In 2012, Sadr expressed unusual defiance when he aligned with the Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani and Sunni forces to initiate a move to unseat Maliki through a vote of no confidence. However, even then, Sadr kept within the communal power-sharing framework by announcing that Kurds and Sunni Arabs accepted that the new prime minister should also come from the Shia alliance.³  Although the move to force Maliki out of power was aborted due to Iranian opposition and the reluctance of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani to support it, Sadr continued his criticism of the Shia prime minister and promised his followers that he would not support the prime minister’s efforts to win a third term.⁴  

Sadr withdrew from political life in early 2014. That seems to have served Maliki’s efforts to stay in power by removing one of the prime minister’s main rivals, but it is not yet clear how Sadr’s followers will behave or if Sadr’s decision is permanent.

After the 2013 provincial elections, the ISCI and Sadrists entered into coalitions with Sunni parties and formed new provincial governments in Baghdad and Basra; both are strategically important because having control of these two cities means having sway in the national political arena.⁵  Meanwhile, Maliki’s new political alliances include some of the most radical Shia groups, such as Asaib Ahl al-Haq, which broke away from the Sadrist Movement, and the Badr Organization, which cleaved from the ISCI and became part of Maliki’s State of Law Coalition.

The fact that Shia groups are rivals indicates that faction-based alignments could at some point in the future take precedence over sectarian groupings. However, these rivalries must not be mistaken for an indicator of the weakness of the sectarian division within Iraq. In fact, they are a result of the increasing confidence that Shia parties have gained on a national scale—their position of power in Iraq allows them to pay more attention to their factional interests. Shia forces have managed to balance the need to maintain communal unity with their intensifying intracommunal rivalry.

The increasingly sectarian and pro-Iranian attributes of Maliki’s alliances are likely to constrain his ability to bridge the sectarian gap in the country.

Indeed, communal mobilization is still an effective instrument for maintaining control, used more frequently by Maliki’s supporters in defense of his government’s policies. But the increasingly sectarian and pro-Iranian attributes of Maliki’s alliances are likely to constrain his ability to bridge the sectarian gap in the country. 

Meanwhile, within the community, Maliki’s insistence on staying in power might only deepen divisions between Shia groups and cause a radical change in the dynamics of Shia politics. One party to watch is the marjiya, the Shia religious authority, and its leader, Ali al-Sistani. The marjiya still possesses a significant spiritual power that can be turned into political action when necessary. It has been reluctant to intervene in political affairs in recent years, and Sistani has refused to meet any of the Iraqi political leaders. At the same time, his representatives have kept urging people to participate in elections and have continued to criticize the problems of the political process, such as rampant corruption, politicians’ exaggerated benefits, and poor public services. The marjiya is still able to set the mainstream Shia discourse.

The marjiya’s future political role will largely depend on the dynamics of Shia politics. Shia parties always try to exhibit loyalty to the marjiya’s principles and guidance. At the same time, each group seeks to build special ties with Sistani’s successor or have a role in selecting him. The conflict between pro-Iranian clerics and the religious traditional school, currently represented by Sistani, is mounting. It is widely believed that the Iranian authorities are promoting the former head of the Iranian judiciary, Mahmoud Hashemi al-Shahroudi, to become the new grand marja.⁶  The Dawa Party is thought to have backed him in an effort to please the Iranians.⁷ 

If the most sectarian trends dominate Shia politics, this is likely to further exacerbate sectarian tensions in the country, potentially driving already-radicalized Sunni communities to further extremes. The political system has consolidated subnational identities, creating a power structure that has reproduced sectarianism. Within such a system, increasing Sunnification has become a natural consequence. 

Sunnis on the Defensive 

Historically, the Sunni Arab community did not adhere to an explicit sectarian identity. Instead, Arab nationalism was the identity of choice in major Sunni provinces such as Mosul and Anbar. Arab nationalism was a perfect construct to conceal Sunni dominance in former regimes and affirm the “commonness” with the Shia majority. 

Unlike Shias, Sunni Arabs did not have significant political groups outside of the Baath Party, so after Saddam, they lacked an effective leadership with a clear sense of direction and were predominantly defensive and rejectionist. Most Sunni Arabs have tried to distance themselves from the former regime and have refused to label it Sunni. But they also distance themselves from the current state. Sunni Arabs have felt that the Shia-dominated government and the Shia militias that emerged during the period of civil war in 2006–2007 in response to al-Qaeda’s attacks against Shia civilians have targeted Sunni communities. Reflecting the deep alienation felt by Sunnis, during the 2005 constitutional referendum, every area populated by a Sunni majority voted against the new constitution. 

A narrative of communal victimhood has come to dominate the Sunni perception of the new Iraq.

A narrative of communal victimhood has come to dominate the Sunni perception of the new Iraq. This perception was deepened by discriminatory policies enacted by the government of Nouri al-Maliki, such as efforts to target Sunni leaders with accusations of terrorism and mass arrests of Sunni citizens, and the selective and biased application of de-Baathification measures, which were less strictly applied to Shia ex-Baathists who shifted their loyalty in favor of Maliki.

The Iraqiya Experiment

In their initial engagement with the political process, Sunni Arabs were divided into two main trends. The first was an Islamist-sectarian trend, led by the Iraqi Islamist Party that founded Jabhat al-Tawafuq (the Concord Front), which dominated Sunni representation from 2006 to 2010. The second was a nationalist-secular trend, initially represented by the National Dialogue Front (NDF) and other formations of Arab nationalists and ex-Baathists. 

In preparation for the 2010 general election, the NDF and other Sunni factions joined the Shia liberal Ayad Allawi to form a new nationalist, cross-sectarian coalition, al-Iraqiya. The new grouping competed with Maliki’s coalition and the Sadr-Hakim alliance.

For many Sunni Arabs, al-Iraqiya brought hope that their perceived marginalization would end and sectarian polarization would be weakened. The new coalition adopted a discourse that was nostalgic for the “nonsectarian past” and critical of de-Baathification and Iranian influence. Yet, the fact that the coalition was dominated by Sunni parties constrained its appeal among Shias. 

In 2010, the coalition managed to win most of the Sunni votes and enough Shia votes to secure first place in the election, with 91 out of 325 seats. It also benefited from the fragmentation of Shia votes between the Maliki-led State of Law Coalition (which received 89 seats) and the Sadr-Hakim National Coalition (70 seats).

Al-Iraqiya’s victory did not translate into the real change that most Sunni Arabs had in mind. Maliki incited Shia fears that al-Iraqiya’s rise represented a return of the Baath and managed to gain Iranian support in the process, exerting strong pressure on Shia parties to accept a second term for him. A multiparty agreement in Erbil, the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan, led to the formation of the new government, in which al-Iraqiya was compensated with important positions, such as minister of defense and the presidency of a proposed national security council. 

But Maliki did not deliver on these promises. He rejected all candidates that al-Iraqiya nominated for the position of defense minister and, instead, assigned it to one of his Sunni allies, arguing that the position was for the Sunni “component” and not necessarily for al-Iraqiya. He also refused to compromise his powers in the proposed national security council, leading to its abandonment.⁸  

In addition, Maliki did not make serious efforts to integrate the members of the Awakening groups. This has further deepened Sunni suspicions of his government and caused the loss of Sunni allies who played an important role in ending the civil war.⁹ 

Al-Iraqiya started to fragment after it failed to obtain the position of prime minister, which was the main aspiration of its leader Ayad Allawi. Maliki accelerated its fragmentation by using carrot-and-stick policies. He won over some of its dissenting wings, who turned into fierce critics of al-Iraqiya’s leadership. He also accused one of its leaders, Tariq al-Hashimi, who was a vice president, of being involved in plotting terrorist attacks. As a result, Hashimi fled the country and was sentenced to death in absentia.¹⁰  One year later, similar accusations were made against Rafi al-Issawi, the minister of finance and a leader in al-Iraqiya. This particular incident incited mass protests in Anbar, Issawi’s home province, leading to a one-year-long mobilization in most Sunni regions to protest against government policies.

Following the failure of the Sunni-backed al-Iraqiya coalition to change the policies of the Shia-led government, the Sunni community and Sunni politics began a process of increasing Sunnification. The Syrian uprising against the Alawite-dominated regime of President Bashar al-Assad inspired Sunni Arabs in Iraq, especially those who saw both the Syrian uprising and the Iraqi Sunni protests as part of one broader struggle against Iranian-backed regimes. 

The two conflicts played significant roles in the “reinvention” of Sunni identity and its narrative of victimhood. Predominantly in Sunni areas of Iraq, sit-in camps were established, and protests became a weekly event that often followed Friday prayer, an imitation of the Arab Spring movements and a sign of the connection between communal identity and religious rituals.

But Sunni divisions prevented the protest movement from developing clear demands and forming a broad-based team to negotiate with the state. Islamists and clerics found in the demonstrations an opportunity to make a comeback to the political scene. Their discourse was defiant and uncompromising, which further marginalized the moderate figures.¹¹  

The sectarian polarization has deepened al-Iraqiya’s crisis and has exacerbated its fragmentation. Most Sunni lawmakers have joined a new coalition, Mutahiddun (United), led by Osama al-Nujeifi, the speaker of parliament, who aspires to become the communal leader of Sunni Arabs in Iraq. In the last provincial election, held in April–July 2013, this coalition came first in both Mosul and Anbar and second in Saladin. However, this victory was not bold enough to establish the coalition as the Sunni counterpart to the State of Law Coalition.

Sunni Insurgency and Increased Militarization

Outside of the political process, a more extremist Sunni insurgency has been brewing in Iraq. The U.S. occupation, Shia empowerment, measures to purge members of the former ruling Baath Party from the state apparatus, and the dissolution of Sunni-dominated military and security organs have all encouraged a radical rejectionist attitude, which legitimized and fed the Sunni insurgency. The insurgency was both communal and ideological; Salafi jihadists found a common cause with ex-Baathists and other Islamist and nationalist groups in fighting both the foreign occupation and the new authorities. 

An al-Qaeda breakaway faction, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (commonly known by the acronym ISIS), was formed in April 2013. The group tried to take advantage of the feelings of disfranchisement among Sunni Arabs and the increasing Salafization of Sunni identity. It has presented itself as a transnational movement that does not recognize national borders and seeks to establish an Islamist Sunni state. 

Helped by the instability and distrust common among the Sunni population and the ISF, ISIS initially became very active in Mosul and western Iraq, and from there moved to occupy areas of eastern Syria. As its influence in Syria increased, its operations in Iraq grew in quantity and quality. The number of car bombs and improvised explosive devices detonated in Baghdad and other cities has reached unprecedented levels since 2008. As a result of ISIS’s activities, other groups such as Jaysh Rijal al-Tariqa al-Naqshbandia, comprised of ex-Baathists, were reenergized. 

Tensions between the state and these radical factions have only been escalating. In April 2013, the ISF raided a protest camp in the city of al-Hawija, leading to clashes in which more than 30 people were killed and hundreds were injured. Leaked videos of the dead bodies of protesters and Iraqi soldiers insulting them have only exacerbated Sunni rage. Some Sunni insurgents responded by attacking Iraqi army and government institutions and calling for armed rebellion.¹² 

Following the killing of the commander of the Seventh Division of the Iraqi army, General Mohammed al-Karawi, in December 2013, Maliki initiated a military campaign against ISIS in Anbar called “Revenge of Commander Mohammed.” The campaign soon shifted its attention to the squares in Anbar in which protests were taking place, which Maliki considered “dens for terrorists.”¹³  The prime minister proved incapable of separating the war against terrorists from his political calculations, and the list of targets in his crackdown was expanded. On December 31, the ISF started to dismantle the sit-in camps while a special unit raided the house of a Sunni lawmaker known for his inflammatory speeches, Ahmed al-Alwani, and arrested him and killed his brother.¹⁴  

As a result of these events, many tribal leaders in Anbar declared their opposition to the Iraqi army’s “invasion” of the city and called for resistance. New groupings were formed, including military revolutionary councils, to fight the ISF.¹⁵  ISIS militants took control of several towns in the province, including Ramadi and Falluja, but they were forced to leave some of these areas by the Awakening groups, led by Ahmed Abu Risha, who realigned with the government to face the common enemy.¹⁶ 

As violence and political polarization escalates, it has become clear that Maliki and his Sunni rivals are focused on mobilizing their communal constituencies rather than bridging the gap between Sunni Arabs and Shias. Identity politics and sectarian differences take center stage, with the divide between Shia and Sunni constituencies deepening. In this context, nonsectarian groups have very limited opportunities to cultivate support.

The Tension Between Centralization and Federalism

Today, the Iraqi political system is unstable. And recent developments indicate that the system might be closer to the brink of collapse than many observers imagine. The rivalry over who controls the state or the largest share of it has continued and escalated because of competition within the central government and between the central government and regional and provincial authorities. The parties to this conflict resort to mobilizing support through ethnic or sectarian narratives and institutions, and this generates further social fragmentation. Meanwhile, tensions are increasing between those who want to consolidate power in the hands of a central executive branch and those who want to further decentralize power.

Recent developments indicate that the Iraqi political system might be closer to the brink of collapse than many observer