Iraq's political future in limbo as factions vie for power

Iraq, a nation steeped in ancient history and rich in oil, currently finds its political future hanging in the balance following the November 2021 parliamentary elections. This election, rather than providing clarity, has plunged the country into a prolonged period of complex negotiations, highlighting the deep-seated sectarian and political divisions that continue to plague the nation nearly two decades after the U.S.-led invasion.

To understand the current impasse, it's crucial to delve into Iraq's tumultuous past. Modern Iraq was carved out of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, later becoming a British mandate and eventually an independent monarchy. The 20th century saw a series of coups, culminating in the rise of the Ba'ath Party and Saddam Hussein's dictatorial rule. The 2003 U.S. invasion, which toppled Saddam, aimed to usher in democracy but inadvertently unleashed a wave of sectarian violence between the Sunni minority (who largely benefited under Saddam) and the Shia majority, alongside the aspirations for autonomy of the Kurdish population in the north. The subsequent years were marked by insurgency, the rise of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and later the devastating emergence of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) which seized vast swathes of territory in 2014.

The November 2021 parliamentary election was held under a new electoral law designed to give independent candidates a better chance and reduce the power of large political blocs. However, it failed to produce a decisive majority for any single bloc. The Sadrist Movement, led by the influential Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, emerged as the largest single bloc, securing 73 out of 329 seats. Sadr, a populist figure with a strong anti-corruption and anti-foreign intervention stance, sought to form a 'national majority government' excluding the Iran-backed Shia factions that had dominated previous governments. This ambition directly challenged the 'consensus government' model, where power is shared among major Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish parties, often leading to gridlock and corruption.

Key stakeholders in this political drama include: **Muqtada al-Sadr** and his **Sadrist Movement**, who advocate for an independent, corruption-free Iraq. Opposing them is the **Coordination Framework**, a powerful alliance of Iran-backed Shia parties and militias, including the Fatah Alliance (linked to former Popular Mobilization Forces) and former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's State of Law coalition. These groups insist on a consensus government that includes all major Shia factions. The **Kurdish parties**, primarily the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), act as kingmakers, holding significant leverage due to their combined seats. They seek to protect Kurdish autonomy and secure their share of oil revenues. **Sunni factions**, though fragmented, also play a role, often aligning with either Shia bloc to secure their interests. Beyond internal players, **Iran** exerts considerable influence, backing various Shia groups, while the **United States** also maintains an interest in Iraq's stability, albeit with a reduced footprint. The **United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI)** monitors and facilitates political dialogue.

For India, the political instability in Iraq carries significant implications. Firstly, **energy security** is paramount. Iraq is India's largest crude oil supplier, accounting for over 20% of its total imports. Prolonged instability, civil unrest, or a breakdown of governance in Iraq could disrupt oil production and exports, leading to volatile global oil prices. This directly impacts India's import bill, foreign exchange reserves, and domestic inflation. Secondly, while not as large as in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, there is an **Indian diaspora** in Iraq, particularly professionals and workers. Their safety and well-being are a constant concern for the Indian government. Thirdly, instability in the Middle East has broader **geopolitical ramifications**. It can fuel radicalization, create new security challenges, and impact India's strategic interests in its extended neighborhood, including counter-terrorism efforts. India's **"Look West" policy** (also known as "Connect West" or "Extended Neighbourhood Policy") emphasizes strong ties with West Asian countries for economic, energy, and security cooperation. A stable Iraq is crucial for the success of this policy and for regional peace.

The future implications are uncertain but potentially grave. The protracted negotiations could lead to a weak, caretaker government unable to address Iraq's pressing issues like high unemployment, corruption, and the need for basic services and infrastructure. This could fuel public discontent, leading to renewed protests and potentially violence. There's also the risk of increased regional interference, exacerbating internal divisions. A complete breakdown could even necessitate new elections, further delaying stability. For India, a volatile Iraq means continued vigilance on energy markets and strategic diplomacy to safeguard its interests in a crucial region.

While Iraq operates under its own 2005 Constitution, India's approach to the situation is guided by principles enshrined in its foreign policy doctrines, which are indirectly linked to the **Directive Principles of State Policy** in the Indian Constitution (Articles 51), advocating for the promotion of international peace and security, maintenance of just and honorable relations between nations, and respect for international law. India's **energy security policies** are designed to diversify import sources and build strategic reserves, directly responding to potential disruptions in major oil-producing regions like Iraq. Furthermore, India’s participation in various international forums and its stance on UN Security Council resolutions concerning Iraq reflect its commitment to global stability and its national interests.