A Shiite challenge divides Iraqis

More than three decades of brutal Baathist rule destroyed Iraq's political diversity, although the Shiite religious structure remained in place, vastly weakened by Saddam Hussein's rule. The downfall of Hussein's regime has provided an opportunity for the Shiites to flex their political muscles for the first time.

While that has led to the emergence of firebrand clerics, notably Moqtada al-Sadr, son of Mohammed Sadiq al-Sadr, a cleric murdered by the old regime, it has also allowed more moderate Shiite authorities, primarily Sistani, to play an influential role in helping shape the country's future.

"The problem for the US at the moment is that it cannot afford to alienate the Shiite majority, since many Sunni Arabs are already so alienated," says Juan Cole, professor of history at the University of Michigan and an authority on Shiism. "At some point the CPA and the Governing Council will have to decide whether they can meet Sistani's demands, or risk going against him." Mr. Jafaari says he will meet Sistani in the next three days to assess the cleric's flexibility.

"I think he will stick to the principle of elections," he says. "I am not sure he will accept a compromise and I am not sure what compromise there can be. Either you have elections or you don't."

Another complaint by Sistani concerns the agreement's failure to recognize and guarantee the Islamic identity of Iraq. That, however, is no obstacle, according to Jafaari, and will be included in the Fundamental Law.

"Everybody agrees on this," he says.

Adding to the complications is a demand by the many of the members to maintain the Governing Council in some capacity beyond the July 1 deadline for disbandment.

"Some of them who belong to political parties are worried that they will no longer remain in office. The CPA says that the agreement calls for end of the council by July 1 and the Americans won't change it," says Othman.

That has reinforced complaints from several members that the Nov. 15 agreement was pushed through too quickly by the CPA, led by Paul Bremer, the American overseer in Iraq. They say it needed to be discussed further, and they blame the haste on the Bush administration's desire to rid itself of the burdens of occupation well before next year's presidential election.

"We should have taken more time to discuss the agreement between the ministers, ourselves, and with Sistani," says Raja Khuzai, a Shiite doctor who is one of two women sitting on the Governing Council.

Another said that during a meeting to discuss the agreement, Mr. Bremer demanded a swift conclusion "or he would tell the media that the council is prolonging the American occupation".

"I was surprised when he said that," says Jafaari, confirming the incident. "I hadn't heard him speak like that before. Sometimes people say things that they don't mean seriously."

But the incident reflects the irritation felt by some council members at what they say is a one-sided relationship between the Governing Council and the CPA.

"From the start, the CPA has the upper hand to rule Iraq. We are secondary," says one. "Yes, we issue laws, but they are not binding until Bremer has signed them. We are obliged to put before them everything we want to do, but they are not obliged to tell us anything. When we disagree, the CPA usually gets its way."

Page: 1 | 2