Reider Visser: US Policy in Iraq at a Crossroads
It is always difficult to know what to make of opinion poll results from violence-ridden countries like Iraq. But at least some of these barometers can be compared with each other. In that respect, it is interesting that recently released poll results from BBC and ABC - based on a survey which followed a methodology similar to that of an earlier poll in March - corroborate the interpretation of Iraq’s Shiites as sceptics in the federalism question, and underlines how any “soft partition” of Iraq today would have to be an externally imposed affair.
Whereas the March 2007 survey contained certain surprises in terms of a relatively high percentage of Shiites in Sadr City indicating a preference for some kind of partition (for full analysis, see www.historiae.org/poll.asp) the results from this latest poll - based on the same geographical areas as the earlier study - are indicative of more traditional Shiite attitudes in the question of state structure. The preference for a centralised state with no federalism at all is back as the clear majority preference at 56% (up from 41%), whereas 42% think that Iraq should have some kind of federalism (40% in March, in neither survey was the character of federalism - ethnic, non-ethnic, anti-ethnic etc. - specified). Only 2% advocate partition (down from 19%).
Two aspects of the results are particularly noteworthy. Firstly, the virtual disappearance of the partition alternative among the Shiites once more throws into question the reliability of the eyebrow-raising pro-partition results from Sadr City back in March, which at the time formed the principal factor behind the surprisingly “high” (19%) preference for partition among the Shiites as a group, and which did not correspond to any known popular movement in favour of separation among the Sadrists. The March results from this area now seem particularly suspect given that Sadr City was over-sampled in both studies, and disaggregated data from the latest poll show that the partition option now has literally zero support in this part of Baghdad. Secondly, it should be emphasised that a majority of Shiites now effectively reject the federal system envisaged by the 2005 Iraqi constitution (where federalism at least is optional) and actually express a desire for a greater degree of centralisation. To some extent, this may have to do with the way in which the survey questions were framed: many Shiites support Kurdish rights to federalism but are less convinced that this is the right solution outside Kurdistan; this asymmetrical model of federalism - which is also the one that is consonant with the Iraqi constitution - is poorly reflected in the questions of the survey. Respondents are simply asked to choose between “no federalism” and “federalism for all”. But the survey results also underline the futility of reading too much into the Shiite “Yes” vote for the 2005 constitution. That vote materialised only after the Shiite ulama had given their grudging consent and had emphasised their view that “weaknesses” in the Iraqi charter remained - another indication that constitutional overhaul and revision should be as relevant in Shiite circles as it is among Sunnis.
For the rest of the articles in this update, please follow the links under the heading 14 September 2007 at www.historiae.org