OPINION:
When I was a young man, I would tell my father that politics was a lot like professional wrestling, except the key difference was that a lot of the wrestlers were actually likable.
Politics and wrestling both have carefully scripted plans that are intended to appear to the audience to be spontaneous. Both draw blood, and both can cause serious injuries to the opposition. Both are followed with rabid fascination by the public.
What I hadn’t realized at the time was that it isn’t only American politics where this similarity exists. It seems to be a worldwide phenomenon. Even in the Middle East.
When Vince McMahon was building his Northeast-centered World Wide Wrestling Federation into a global juggernaut (now the WWE), he developed a match called the Battle Royale. It was a wild free-for-all that put a dozen or more men all in the ring at once. To be eliminated, a wrestler had to be tossed out of the squared circle, and the last man left in the ring was declared the winner. Early in the competition, it was common for unlikely allies to work together to eliminate another wrestler they thought might be problematic.
So it is in Iraqi politics — the battle to serve as the next prime minister has turned into a Battle Royale.
Many of Iraq’s biggest political names, including at least four of the men who have served as prime minister since the fall of Saddam Hussein, would like to be considered. Other high-ranking officials are of interest as well.
And behind the scenes, the wrestling analogy fits perfectly.
Iraq held an election 100 days ago, and the party of sitting Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani was the biggest winner, but its 46 seats fell well shy of a majority of the Iraqi Parliament’s 329 seats. Multiple political parties, a variety of religious and ethnic factions, and geographical concerns all play a role in dividing up the seats into a patchwork of interests.
As in most parliamentary systems, the elected body chooses the prime minister. But more than half of Parliament has to agree, and 100 days have passed with no choice. There is no deadline and so the issue is languishing. The holy season of Ramadan has just begun, so no decision is likely for at least another 30 days.
Mr. al-Sudani has governed over a remarkably stable period of growth. Iraq is safer, more prosperous and, by most accounts, has rooted out a great deal of the corruption that previously existed.
His personal popularity is what led his party to earn the most seats in November’s elections. The primary objection to Mr. al-Sudani’s return for another term as prime minister seems to be some factions not wanting anyone to stay in office for too long an extended period. Nothing specifically suggests that he has any designs on making himself dictator for life, but a generic concern exists. Call it the Saddam Hussein hangover.
Mr. al-Sudani’s predecessor, former Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi, has largely been absent from the spotlight for the past few years, but appears to be attempting to seize a moment of confusion, both regionally and domestically, to return to power.
The man who faded away when public pressure intensified, and disappeared from view as questions about his government’s legacy mounted, now suddenly reemerges when the waters of politics begin to stir — almost as if appearing and disappearing have become a tactic tied to shifts in political mood rather than to consistency of position or clarity of vision.
Mr. al-Kadhimi’s reappearance coincides with President Trump’s overt rejection of reintroducing Nouri al-Maliki, who served as prime minister from 2006 to 2014. Iraq’s Foreign Ministry revealed this week that it had received a verbal message from the U.S. warning of possible sanctions if Mr. al-Maliki is renominated. Good, bad or otherwise, Mr. Trump has affected the Iraqi decision-making process, making it unlikely Mr. al-Maliki will be chosen.
When one heavyweight name is excluded, aspiring figures rush to present themselves as “acceptable” alternatives internationally, and Mr. al-Kadhimi is doing exactly that. A pressing question arises, however: Is the absence of a formidable rival enough to turn collective memory into a blank page? Can changing international equations erase the burdens of controversial years?
The public sometimes has a short memory where politics is concerned. Mr. al-Kadhimi left office under the weight of public anger. He resurfaced ahead of parliamentary elections with a sharply critical tone directed at projects and executive plans — overlooking the fact that many of the crises he now addresses were formed or deepened during his tenure. He has appeared once again in recent days as his name circulates as a potential compromise candidate to resolve the premiership crisis following U.S. opposition to Mr. al-Maliki.
Mr. al-Kadhimi has a challenging legacy that follows him. The so-called “Heist of the Century” file has ceased to be merely a judicial case debated in courtrooms; it has become a symbol of the collapse of government oversight mechanisms and the overreach of influence networks within state institutions. Trust in government, which languished at low levels during the aftermath of Mr. al-Kadhimi’s time in office, has been slowly rebuilt during the al-Sudani years.
The embers of that scandal remain alive in public memory, and any attempt to gloss over it risks reigniting the flames. The association of figures from Mr. al-Kadhimi’s close circle with the scandal has made it exceedingly difficult to separate his name from that chapter — even in the absence of a direct legal indictment against him.
The last thing Iraq needs is its own people giving up on its government yet again.
The fourth former prime minister being mentioned is Haider al-Abadi, who served from 2014 to 2018. He is well-liked and well-respected and is generally credited with defeating the Islamic State terror group.
His Achilles’ heel seems to be that while he successfully fought off terrorists, he could have, by his own admission, done more on the economy. At a time when Baghdad is beginning to enjoy some prosperity, some question whether he is the right person to take the helm of the economy.
As the political Battle Royale unfolds, it may well turn out that none of the former prime ministers are chosen and instead a consensus candidate fills the slot. Mr. al-Sudani, while proven and popular, has indicated he is willing to put the best interests of the country ahead of his own ambitions.
Everyone except Mr. al-Maliki himself seems to know that his candidacy is doomed after Mr. Trump’s comments. As for Mr. al-Kadhimi, it’s hard to imagine an Iraqi public who was so disenchanted with him and his administration just three years ago is going to be enthusiastic about his return, and Mr. al-Abadi doesn’t seem to have any notable momentum toward a return.
The wrestling Battle Royale would sometimes result in an unpopular winner because two or more competitors teamed up to eliminate the most popular or most likely winner. Behind the scenes in Baghdad, it looks eerily similar. Backroom alliances effectively tossing out the best options might leave the public stuck with someone they have previously and emphatically rejected.
The people of Iraq hope for, and deserve, better.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.