first published in the New Statesman, Saturday 1st January 2005

Observations on Iraq. By Stephen Grey

On a cold winter’s night in Iraq, a young shopkeeper stands outside in the
driving rain, his storefront illuminated by a sputtering petrol gen-erator.
It is a flickering pool of light in a city of darkness. Basra has been
getting barely four hours of electricity a day – one year after the British
army announced the restoration of round-the-clock power.
The young owner, Mohamed Hussein, shows us a poster, plastered with a
picture of a Shia saint, that announces the Iraqi elections on 30 January.
As we talk, a Kalashnikov bullet echoes across the street. The British
soldiers with me drop down for cover. Hussein does not flinch. “There is not
a single person in this city that will not vote in January,” he says. “We
have waited all our lives for this moment.”

Talking to Shias in southern Iraq, you get the impression that however many
suicide bombers or assassins stalk the streets, they will cast their vote.
Their leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, has ordered them to vote: they
will obey.

For Shias – at least 60 per cent of Iraq’s population – the importance of 30
January dates back to the defining moment of Shi-ism itself: the martyrdom
(and hence defeat) of Imam Hussein ibn Ali, grandson of the Prophet
Muhammad, at the Battle of Karbala in 680AD. Through the centuries since,
the Shias have never held sway in Mesopotamia. All their insurrections since
the collapse of the Ottoman empire have failed – against the British in 1920
or against Saddam Hussein in 1991.

So Shias, from illiterate Marsh Arabs to the thin ranks of Shia
intellectuals, share the belief that these elections are their main chance.
And that is why, conscious of how George W Bush’s father abandoned them to
be slaughtered by Saddam in 1991, they are so sensitive about talk of

The Americans worry more about the outcome of the vote than whether it will
take place. Their big fear is that if the Sunnis boycott the poll, the
agents and collaborators of Iran will come in, riding on the back of a large
Shia victory. US politics in the Middle East has been geared for decades to
supporting the Sunni establishment of sheikhs and generals who have safely
guarded world oil supply.

The biggest electoral force, the United Iraqi Alliance, a coalition created
on the orders of al-Sistani, reads like a checklist of Tehran-friendly
politicians who want the imposition of sharia law and clerical rule. It is
led by the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, which was
formerly based in Tehran and whose leader, Sayed Mohamad Baqir al-Hakim,
spent years in Iran. It also includes the Iraqi branch of Hezbollah, which
is close to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, the Islamic Dawa Party, whose
leaders were also exiled in Iran, and the Iraqi National Congress – whose
leader, Ahmad Chalabi, US officials accuse of being an Iranian agent.

Yet al-Sistani is rowing back from ordering Shias to vote for the coalition
that he helped to create. And even in places such as Basra, in the Shia
heartland, Iran is unpopular. Also comforting for the Americans is that
their creation, the interim prime minister and secular Shia Iyad Allawi, has
become immensely popular in the south for giving US marines the green light
for their assault on Fallujah. In the face of disorder, the desire for
security seems universal. Again and again, I heard: “We like Allawi because
he is a strong man.”

Tribal politics still count. Amer al-Fa’azi, a leading member of the Dawa
Islamic Movement but also head of the 140,000-strong Beni Amer tribe, said:
“I don’t need to campaign for these people to support me. Of course they
will all vote for me, because of my tribal relationship. It’s not like in

So far, despite one provocation after another, Shias have rarely retaliated
with sectarian attacks, nor, despite the failure of US and British
reconstruction promises, have many joined in violence against the coalition.
When the Shia Mahdi army, led by Moqtada al-Sadr, declared war on the
western coalition, most of the well-armed Shia militia refused to join their
action. But there are warning signs of a sectarian civil war – in, for
example, the increased rarity with which Sunnis and Shias worship at each
other’s mosques. And a little-noticed Shia militia, calling itself the
“angry brigade”, formed in December to organise reprisal attacks on Sunnis.

If the promise of democracy – the one clear gain of the invasion – fails to
deliver for the silent, patient majority of Shia Iraqis, who have endured so
much in return for so little, they may finally pick up their rifles and go
to war.

This article first appeared in the New Statesman. For the latest in current
and cultural affairs subscribe to the New Statesman print edition.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *