An agreement signed by Iraq's two main Shiite blocs seeking to govern the country gives the final decision on all their political disputes to top Shiite clerics, according to a copy obtained by The Associated Press on Wednesday.
If the alliance succeeds in forming the next government, the provision could increase the role of senior clergy in politics. The provision would likely further alienate Iraq's Sunni minority, which already feels excluded by Shiite dominance and had been hoping that March's election would boost their say in power.
This is a dispute resolution procedure for the parties and not a state apparatus that puts clerics in power.
This could be worrisome, but it is not automatically a problem. How long can these rival blocs hold together even with such an agreement?
And as long as rule of law persists in governing institutions, neither the Sunni Arabs nor Kurds should drive them to violence. Democracy does not guarantee them a spot in government. Nor should threats of violence give anyone a place in government to avoid that violence.
If this holds, we must make sure rule of law holds firm in Iraq. That way the two Shia parties can't stomp on Sunni Arabs and Kurds who also play by the rules. As long as everyone knows rule of law will dominate and that there will be another election, this won't develop into a problem.
UPDATE: Sistani didn't know about the deal. Which makes it less threatening in my opinion. It may seem odd and worrisome to look to clerics for the ability to bridge differences within the political alliance, but is it any more odd for one political party here to bestow so much authority to the reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to bless any conflict over race relations here? Our republic survives. And Iraq's will not fall on this as much as I wish the Iraqis hadn't done it.
