Dr. Amer Hassan Fayyadh
1. Participation in Elections: A Right or a Duty?
Constitutional legal scholarship has diverged on the legal characterization of participation in elections, whether in voting or candidacy. As a result, three main orientations have emerged:
The first orientation regards elections as a personal right of every citizen, in accordance with the theory of popular sovereignty. According to this theory, sovereignty is divisible among the people, and each individual is authorized to exercise their share of that sovereignty. Consequently, no citizen may be deprived of or restricted in exercising this right. It is a discretionary entitlement that the rights-holder is not compelled to exercise.
The second orientation considers elections a duty and a public function. Rooted in the theory of national sovereignty, this view holds that sovereignty is a single, indivisible whole that is expressed by the nation collectively rather than by individuals separately. Accordingly, voters are entrusted with the duty of selecting the most competent individuals to exercise authority. Only those who possess particular qualifications and the ability to make sound judgments in selecting public officials may perform this function. Under this orientation, a restricted suffrage system may be adopted, wherein citizens are obligated to participate for the sake of the public interest rather than for private gain.
The third orientation seeks to combine both perspectives, considering elections simultaneously a right and a public function. This view appears more concerned with forming an electorate composed of individuals who possess the required awareness and experience to choose qualified representatives for political office. Historically, however, this perspective was used to justify depriving members of poorer social classes and women of the rights to vote and to stand for office, while reinforcing the political role and status of the ruling aristocratic elite.
Adopting a restricted suffrage system requires the legislator to impose certain conditions and limitations on both voters and candidates, with the aim of enhancing the competence of the electoral body and those elected to public office. Among the most prominent restrictions imposed on voters are the following:
- Educational Requirements
This may involve requiring voters to hold a specific academic qualification or, at minimum, possess literacy skills. Certain states have adopted such conditions and compensated for the absence of educational attainment with age-based requirements. For example, in Portugal, an illiterate voter had to be older in age or be a head of household. Italy previously required examinations for voters lacking educational certificates. The rationale behind these conditions is that making sound electoral choices requires a degree of knowledge, intelligence, and political awareness.
- Property or Economic Requirements
This condition requires that the voter possess a specified amount of movable or immovable property and pay taxes on it to the state. England applied this requirement until 1919, and Italy until 1948, among other states. Jurists justified this approach on the grounds that public affairs more directly concern those with property, and that buying the votes of wealthy individuals is more difficult than influencing the poor. Wealth has also been viewed as an indicator of competence and knowledge, and taxpayers, being more directly affected by government performance, are deemed more deserving of participation in elections.
- Political Awareness and Responsibility
Proponents of restricted suffrage argue that low levels of political awareness lead to a diminished sense of responsibility and a reduced ability to select the most qualified candidates. They maintain that such voters are more susceptible to misinformation and manipulation by political parties through modern propaganda and rumor campaigns. However, due to the expansion of democratic norms, these restrictions have largely been abandoned, as they contradict the principle of universal suffrage.
Based on the foregoing, while we acknowledge that imposing restrictions on voting and candidacy does not align with prevailing democratic practice, we believe that if the legislator were vested with sufficient authority and discretion, definitive conditions and limitations could be established to shape the composition of the electorate. Likewise, imposing requirements on political parties would oblige them to nominate their most qualified and capable candidates, particularly those possessing the academic and practical expertise necessary for political representation and public administration, thereby submitting them to electoral competition.
2. On the Utility of Elections in Emerging Democracies
Democratic elections alone do not build a functioning state; yet no real state can exist without elections, and elections themselves cannot be genuinely democratic without a sovereign and independent state. Elections are expected to produce an elite committed to achieving the public good in the administration of public affairs, and capable of doing so efficiently. This raises the question: Have Iraq’s general elections produced such elites?
In a society undergoing a nascent democratic transition, it is easy to influence the electoral decisions of voters who possess limited political awareness. This negatively affects the composition of the ruling elite in terms of competence, qualifications, and dedication to the public interest. Those elected to high office must possess a range of capabilities and qualifications, most importantly the ability to lead the state and society, a genuine commitment to addressing public issues, the capacity to advance programs to achieve that objective, and the experience to manage crises effectively.
Consequently, entry into the ranks of senior state officials should not be open to every individual, because the role of a statesman is not a routine occupation. A statesman differs from a representative political leader whose primary energy is devoted to winning elections. The qualities required to succeed as a representative leader are not necessarily those of a statesman, particularly since elections in emerging democracies may provide opportunities for demagogues to attain office. It becomes difficult for voters to distinguish individuals truly suited for public leadership from ordinary political actors and populists.
This difficulty is heightened in emerging democracies where clientelism, and the politicization of tribal, sectarian, and nationalist affiliations shape voter behavior. Candidates frequently rely on misleading voters and employing illegitimate propaganda methods in elections that are neither genuinely free nor fair. As a result, the ruling political elite often lacks integrity and is unable to achieve the public good.
When a ruling elite bases its exercise of authority solely on electoral legitimacy rather than legitimacy derived from performance, political actors are not incentivized to nominate the most competent and qualified candidates for political representation. This is especially true when dominant elites are able to secure electoral outcomes in their favor through both legitimate and illegitimate means.
Iraq’s democratic transition resulted from external intervention, not from a natural process of political development and institutional maturation, and the experience continues to suffer from deep structural weaknesses. Parliamentary elections initially adopted proportional representation, which encouraged the proliferation of political parties and dispersed both votes and parliamentary seats. This fragmentation negatively affected the formation of the Council of Representatives by increasing division, tension, and conflict among parliamentary blocs, thereby complicating the decision-making process and undermining legislative effectiveness. The closed-list system was implemented for two electoral cycles, reinforcing the insularity of the ruling elite, preserving the dominance of traditional influential parties, and depriving voters of the opportunity to choose among individual candidates nominated on party lists in order to select the most qualified.
Notably, electoral abstention has steadily increased in each election cycle. Rising abstention reflects widespread public dissatisfaction with the performance of those in power. It also represents a voter response to the spread of corruption, declining confidence in electoral integrity, and frustration with the inability of electoral processes to generate meaningful change in the composition of the Council of Representatives, its prevailing agendas, and its approach to exercising authority and shaping the state.
Under proportional representation and a system of quota-sharing and political consensus that extends beyond constitutional boundaries, electoral competition has not reflected genuine contestation between ruling and opposing political elites over national interests. The absence of an active parliamentary opposition has enabled dominant elites to design or amend the electoral system to their advantage in each electoral cycle, turning elections into a mechanism for perpetuating their control rather than a mechanism for the peaceful transfer of power between governing and opposing forces.
Iraq’s parliamentary electoral experience has produced a parliamentary elite constrained by narrow sub-national loyalties. Nomination practices have contributed to this outcome, as parties have selected candidates primarily on tribal and communal grounds. This has brought tribal, sectarian, religious, and ethnonationalist perspectives into a democratic institution that should instead be grounded in dialogue and intellectual and political pluralism, and that requires a high level of political and legal culture. It is well established that when sub-national identities outweigh national affiliation in nomination and voting behavior, the ability of elections to produce a ruling elite that is competent, qualified, and genuinely dedicated to achieving the public good is severely diminished.
3. A Final Word on Elections
The contemporary form of globalization-American in nature and objectives-relies on fragmenting the economic, social, cultural, and political structures of societies, subsuming them, and restructuring them through the negation of their particularities, so that these structures are absorbed into an individualism stripped of social loyalty and responsibility.
A central condition for globalization’s success in achieving its objectives is the diminution of the nation-state’s roles and responsibilities, the erosion of its capacities and effectiveness, and, ultimately, its elimination whenever possible.
The source of the contradiction between globalization and the nation-state-whose principles are rooted in independence, sovereignty, defined borders, legislative authority, and non-interference in internal affairs-lies in the concentration of monopolistic capital, the extensive reach of financial markets, international investors, and transnational corporations, and the corresponding expansion of capitalist interests and influence.
The antagonism of globalized capitalist market forces toward the state, and their pursuit of its weakening or elimination, stems from the need to remove any sovereign authority capable of formulating independent policies and making autonomous decisions within an international economy premised on interdependence among the world’s economies.
Internationalization represents globalization within an interactive environment in which the state remains a principal actor; in contrast, globalization constitutes internationalization within a multi-actor environment in which the state is only one participant, neither the most influential nor the most effective. Moreover, internationalization primarily refers to economic globalization, whereas globalization encompasses economic, political, cultural, and media dimensions.
The dominant forces of the contemporary capitalist market promote discourses of freedom and democracy when they concern rights and liberties related to the movement, investment, and employment of capital, and the free circulation of goods, services, information, ideas, and expertise-freedoms directly connected to capitalist activity. Conversely, they often neglect or even oppose rights and freedoms that may threaten or conflict with capitalist interests. Consequently, the processes and outcomes of globalization marginalize the majority of populations in developing countries, as well as significant portions of the population in developed countries, to the benefit of a limited group of individuals possessing capital and specialized scientific and technological expertise.
Examining the political orientations of globalization in its American form reveals that its engagement with the nation-state is predicated on the assumption that no state can maintain its internal conditions or external relations for long if it operates outside the framework of globalization, regardless of whether this framework aligns with or contradicts the state’s circumstances. What ultimately matters is that no state is permitted to act independently of the globalized system, particularly in accordance with its distinctly American rules and objectives.
Responding to the pressures and impositions of capitalist globalization requires interaction rather than isolation, provided that the nation-state possesses the capabilities to withstand such encounters without defeat. The foremost element of this capability is sustained economic growth, the foundation of which is political stability. Political stability, in turn, depends on a set of prerequisites, most notably political legitimacy-that is, the legitimacy of the state and its governing authority. The primary and indispensable foundation of political legitimacy is the conduct of elections and the continuous maintenance of electoral processes.
4.The Question of Election Boycott
In the contemporary world, elections are no longer merely one option among many; they have become the primary mechanism for those seeking to engage in genuine politics. Those who anticipate failure in elections often offer justifications that ultimately serve the opponents of democracy-some of whom favor chaos, others who admire coups, and still others who exploit opportunities for election boycotts as a strategy to achieve victory through fraud, money, and armed influence.
Those who boycott elections attempt to rationalize their loss by claiming abstention-similar to a soldier who loses a battle and asserts defeat because he abandoned the fight in pursuit of peace. In politics, however, the distinction between losing through participation and losing through boycott is profound, because Iraq’s future hinges on three potential scenarios: chaos, coups, or elections-there is no fourth.
Although the electoral scenario may not yield ideal outcomes, it is the least harmful compared to the alternatives of chaos or coups.
Who benefits from chaos and coups? Clearly, the greatest losers are the Iraqi people. Beneficiaries are those who do not wish to see Iraqis as full citizens, including outsiders, the corrupt, sectarian power brokers, and chauvinistic nationalists both within and beyond Iraq’s borders.
While election outcomes may be weak and incapable of ensuring progress or development, they at least provide a mechanism to halt the descent into chaos and prevent the militarization of politics. Iraq does not deserve its authoritarian past nor its present state of corruption and disorder; it deserves a future better than both. Elections may be imperfect, but without them, the country faces the best of disadvantages rather than the worst of advantages.
5. Beware the “Democracy” of the Enemies of Democracy
In today’s world, no political actor dares openly declare hostility toward democracy and its electoral mechanisms. While democracy cannot be realized without elections, it is equally true that elections alone do not guarantee democracy.
The electoral process may encounter errors and setbacks that undermine the essential conditions for free, fair, and impartial elections. However, addressing these shortcomings is possible only through the continuation of elections-without abstention or boycott, whether in voting or candidacy.
Elections remain the principal instrument for assessing the strength of political change and the credibility of those advocating it. Their importance is multi-layered, particularly in conferring legitimacy upon the political system. Boycotting or abstaining deprives both the country and its citizens of this legitimacy. Without elections, the political system cannot acquire its authority, since elections grant legitimacy to the legislative body, enabling it to enact laws regulating public life and fostering societal stability.
Elections also ensure broad public participation in decision-making. Widespread political engagement is a defining feature of democracy, as it provides all eligible members of society with opportunities to influence governance through candidacy, voting, and holding public office, thereby shaping political decisions.
The practice and continuity of elections institutionalize the citizen’s freedom of choice, expressing the will of the people in selecting appropriate candidates. Elections help establish good governance, combat corruption, and facilitate systemic reform by serving as the mechanism through which citizens hold officials accountable, monitor their performance, and detect shortcomings in the execution of public duties.
Furthermore, elections provide a framework for power-sharing and the management of social diversity and pluralism through peaceful competition. They create opportunities for the rotation of power among political forces based on legal principles, safeguard political rights, and ensure inclusive participation.
In Iraq, elections and their continuity are particularly significant due to the crises and challenges facing the political system, which have undermined public confidence in electoral outcomes. Reforming the electoral process is therefore not merely a procedural requirement but a fundamental step toward reinforcing political stability. Such reform-through insistence on participation and rejection of boycott-aims to establish an electoral system capable of producing competent political elites who represent the popular will, contribute to institutional state-building, strengthen political stability, and embed societal peace in an Iraq deserving of a strong and democratic future.
Our message is clear: those who boycott elections serve all enemies of democracy, including those who consolidate power through elections and monopolize the interests of the country and its citizens under the guise of legal authority.
We therefore call upon every genuine supporter of democracy to resist surrendering democratic mechanisms to its adversaries. The “democracy” of the true enemies of democracy depends on genuine democrats abandoning democratic processes through boycott or withdrawal, whether in candidacy or voting.
