The Iraqi Prime Minister

Excerpts from an article on the BBC website:

"Figures within Iraq's majority Shia alliance have for the first time urged Ibrahim Jaafari to stand down as PM to help a national unity government form.

Key alliance politician Qassim Daoud made the call, saying it would help break the political deadlock.

Mr Jaafari, a Shia, is opposed by the minority Sunni and Kurdish blocks."

"A key aide to Mr Jaafari told Reuters news agency on Saturday the prime minister would not give in to the calls to resign."

"[Daoud] said: '[. . .] There is a current [within the alliance] that is calling on the prime minister to withdraw his nomination because the political process has reached a deadlock.'"

"Mr Jaafari was chosen by the ruling Shia-led bloc after it won December's election.

But Kurdish and Sunni Arab parties have rejected the nomination and have threatened to boycott a national unity government unless Mr Jaafari withdraws.

The delay in forming a government is thought to be partly responsible for fuelling the increasing sectarian violence which has struck Iraq since last month's bombing of a key Shia shrine at Samarra.

Other sources within the alliance said as many four of the blocs within the grouping wanted Mr Jaafari to stand down if he could not gain Sunni and Kurdish support.

'Daoud's call is supported by at least 60% of alliance members of parliament,' a senior alliance official told Reuters."

The idea that a politician with so little support would stay in office in a country with Iraq's history is disagreeable, to say the least.

I wonder what kind of a precedent there is for leaders with little popular support in modern democracies. I know that in Canada and in other countries with a parliamentary system, the governing party can be forced to call an election if it loses in a vote of no confidence. That is to say, the Canadian system doesn't seem to allow for people in Jaafari's position to stay in office. As for the US, Bush's approval ratings are certainly low, but (unless I am mistaken) he does still have the support of Congress and the Senate.

In the case of Iraq, stability is, of course, an important goal. Still, a stable government that doesn't represent the people, or even the people's representatives, is not a democratic government. Either way, I should think that any Iraqi government that doesn't please all three ethnic groups (at least to some extent) will always result in unrest, not stability.

US President Bush's reaction:

"This week senior Shia politicians said US ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, had told them President George W Bush 'doesn't want, doesn't support, doesn't accept' the retention of Mr Jaafari."

I marvel at the gall of Jaafari when he says that "the comments undermined Mr Bush's commitment to democracy in Iraq." What does he think democracy is?

Well, perhaps I have heard only one side of the affair.

Sidenote: Perhaps I should stop including lengthy quotations from articles. Being able to write accurate, concise summaries is an important skill to practice, after all. :o)

Update: "The White House has denied the US is backing away from Mr Jaafari." (from this BBC article) Do I interpret this correctly as a direct contradiction to a quotation shown earlier in this post? Didn't "senior Shia politicians" say that "US ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, had told them President George W Bush 'doesn't want, doesn't support, doesn't accept' the retention of Mr Jaafari"?

Well, if there was misquoting involved, I suppose that's what happens when a statement is filtered through three sources. Silly BBC. :o) (Ah, the joy of patronizing professionals from afar.)

If the US government is either flip-flopping (!!!) or tolerant of Jaafari as Prime Minister, I withdraw what approval I had of their reaction to the affair.

Finally, if I misinterpreted, my apologies.