On Iraq, Political Dogfights and the Commercial Media's Inability to Get the Story Right

Posted by Joshua Holland and Raed Jarrar, AlterNet at 7:19 AM on November 9, 2007.

Over on the front page, our choice of title, "Iraqi Government to UN: 'Don't Extend Mandate for Bush's Occupation'," is almost a form of protest against the reporting we see every day in the legacy media.

If we were writing for the New York Times, the Washington Post or any other "mainstream" outlet, the same story -- if it were reported at all -- would have a title like this:

"Iraqi Government Requests UN Extension for Coalition Mandate."

You'll never see a clearer example of the divergent realities that different media can present than these diametrically opposed descriptions of what's happening with the UN mandate (we would have preferred to offer a real title for comparison, but none of the traditional media have so far told the story).

The truth is that both claims are incorrect: the Iraqi "government," like our own, features a separation of powers, and, just as it is in the U.S., those powers are often in conflict. That's the case in Iraq on the most serious questions facing the young country: how long to allow foreign troops to patrol its streets, how to divvy up its awesome natural wealth, the relationship between the central and regional governments in a brand new federal system -- on all of these crucial issues, "the Iraqi government" speaks with anything but a single voice.

This kind of dynamic is perfectly clear when it comes to domestic politics. Indeed, the political media love institutional fights in DC almost as much as they like a good partisan throw-down, and they never seem to have a problem understanding that the White House and Congress can be totally out of sync on an issue like, say, immigration, or stem cell research. Yet, despite the fact that the Iraqi parliament is the only elected entity in the government, we almost never hear from them. The only voices of the "Iraqi government" that are allowed a voice on behalf of the eye-raqis are the PM, his assistants, and the Cabinet.

To a certain degree, that's to be expected; heads of state -- executive branches in any form of government -- always get the lion's share of attention. But in the case of Iraq, that's not enough to explain the phenomenon. This is a toddler of a democracy, and the parliament is at odds with Maliki and his cabinet over defining issues that are likely to shape the entire future of Iraq. What's more, Maliki's coalition has fallen apart, and his office now represents only a very small constituency. Ignoring the voices of opposition means that Americans are only getting half the story (at best).

These political dynamics, crucial as they are to understanding the whole picture of what's happening in Iraq, are routinely buried in favor of breathless reporting on the country's sectarian and ethnic rifts. The fact that all we hear about is "sectarian violence" when there exists an almost completely unreported, multi-ethnic coalition of nationalists in the legislature is ridiculous; the fact that the U.S. has tried to thwart the body's nationalist majority at every opportunity and it's gone unreported is tragic, and borders on media malpractice.

As to the dueling headlines, the frightening truth is that ours is a whole lot closer to being accurate than the one we offer hypothetically on behalf of the Em-Es-Em. That is, according to the Iraqi constitution, the ultimate authority for entering into treaties is not with the Prime Minister's office, but with the Council of Representatives. According to Article 45 of the Iraqi constitution, the Iraqi central government consists of three branches: "The federal powers shall consist of the legislative, the executive and the judicial powers." Both the executive and legislative branches are vested with certain specific powers when it comes to entering into international agreements, but it is the parliament that has the ultimate responsibility of ratifying any new agreement or treaty. Given that Maliki and his cabinet are in favor of extending the mandate and a majority in the parliament is opposed to doing so without conditions, it's ridiculous to say "the Iraqi government" favors the extension.

Please, media, get this story straight: The Iraqi executive branch (the cabinet and presidency), dominated by Sunni, Shia, Kurdish, and Secular separatists, have been systematically bypassing the Iraqi legislative branch (the parliament) which is controlled by a majority of Iraqi nationalists from all different religious/sectarian/ethnic backgrounds. This is unconstitutional, and it's being supported by the Bushies and Congress, who are helping the administration's separatist allies gain more political and military control over those who represent the majority of the public. The Iraqi parliament is the only elected entity in the Iraqi government, and that's why, unlike the other "selected" entities, it's demanding to set a timetable to end the U.S.-led occupation.

We've certainly set up a "democracy" in our own image, complete with an executive branch that runs roughshod over the Constitution and has nothing but undisguised contempt for the other branches of government.

There's a fascinating story there, if only the traditional media would start telling it.

Tagged as: media, iraq, un, manate, bonus track

Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer. Raed Jarrar is Iraq consultant to the American Friends Service Committee. He blogs at Raed in the Middle.