6OJUFE4UBUFT*OTUJUVUFPG1FBDFtXXXVTJQPSHt5FMt'BY

UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE

a64*1t"MMSJHIUTSFTFSWFE

“Given Iraq’s history of 

authoritarian government and 

the complexities of the current 

political transition, resolution 

of the separation of powers 

debate may be as important 

to Iraq’s future as the identity 

of the individual who ultimately occupies the premiership.”

June 24, 2010 

The Premiership

Summary

t The institution of Iraq’s prime minister has evolved since the previous national government 

was formed in 2006. The success of incumbent Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki in building an 

independent power base around the o!ce and the diminishing U.S. presence in Iraq have 

transformed the perception and stature of Iraq’s chief executive.

t This evolution of the position helps to explain why negotiations over the government’s formation have struggled to move beyond the top post to discuss other assignments and the new 

government’s agenda. The talks are not just about agreeing on a prime minister in the context 

of inconclusive, close election results, and competing regional in"uences; these talks are trying to de#ne the role of the premiership and possible checks on its power. 

t Understanding the debate on possible checks and balances is important because of its potential rami#cations for Iraq’s democratic experiment, and also because agreement on this issue 

might pave the way for the nomination of a prime minister. 

The Premiership 

In Baghdad, the focus of the government formation process is almost entirely on one position, 

prime minister, and largely on one man, incumbent Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki. While the role 

of neighboring countries and the perceived declining U.S. interest get substantial attention, it is 

Maliki—the relatively unknown compromise candidate from 2006—who now plays the lead role 

in this transition as the most independent, ambitious and unpredictable actor on the scene.1 Win 

or lose, Maliki serves as a lightning rod for a growing debate on the role of Iraq’s chief executive 

that could leave a major imprint on Iraq’s system of government. 

It is well known that Maliki’s success since 2006 in building an independent power base as 

prime minister is a common concern among his rivals in the secular and Sunni Iraqiya bloc, the 

Shiite Iraqi National Alliance (INA) and the Kurdistan Alliance. What is less appreciated is that the 

ongoing U.S. military drawdown also increases the authority of the premiership, particularly its 

commander in chief role. The nature of the o!ce has clearly evolved from four years ago, when 

tapping an assumedly weak compromise #gure to be the prime minister was largely acceptable. 

It is this transformation that helps to explain why Iraqis are now struggling to move beyond the 

top position to discuss other posts and the new government’s program. The negotiations this 

time are not just about #nding a mutually acceptable prime minister, but also the powers of the 

o!ce itself. 

SEAN KANE

&NBJMTLBOF!VTJQPSH

1IPOF

PEACE#3*&'39
a64*1t"MMSJHIUTSFTFSWFE

The Premiership

QBHFt1#t+VOF


2006 Versus 2010

In 2006, government formation took almost six months. It is di!cult to predict a timeline for the 

current process, but Iraqis characterize the present situation as more complex than 2006 due to a 

combination of internal and external factors. 

The #rst source of increased complexity is the nature of the electoral coalitions and hence 

the election results in 2010. In 2006, the grand Shiite electoral alliance won 47 percent of the 

parliamentary seats and it was clear that this entity would nominate the prime minister. In 2009, 

Prime Minister Maliki split from the uni#ed “Shia house” to form his own separate list, the State 

of Law (SoL). This consequential decision resulted in the inconclusive nature of the March 2010 

election results, where Iraqiya, Maliki’s SoL, and the INA (the remainder of the Shiite alliance) all 

won between 22 percent and 28 percent of the seats on o$er. Furthermore, while Maliki ended up 

receiving the most votes of any individual candidate (over 600,000 personal votes), it was former 

Prime Minister Ayad Allawi’s Iraqiya bloc rather than one of the two main Shiite lists that achieved 

a narrow overall plurality. The closeness of the results has left it unclear which bloc will nominate 

the prime minister, has stimulated electoral appeals and constitutional disputes over government 

formation procedures, and has led to painstaking coalition-building e$orts.

Stepping back from the intricacies of government formation, the second source of complexity 

is the experience of the last four years. As one parliament member (MP) in the State of Law list 

frankly admitted, the prime minister position has grown in importance so as to “dominate everything.” 2

 The manner in which this enhanced power has been wielded—such as Maliki’s broadly 

popular campaign against the Sadrists’ Mahdi Army in 2008 or the establishment of special military 

units that report directly to the prime minister’s o!ce—has been widely noted across the political 

spectrum. The bottom line is that the authority of the premiership has increased—thus making the 

compensation prize of other posts less appealing.

Finally, the complexity of the government formation process in 2010 results from increased 

involvement of regional actors. Many Iraqis view neighboring countries as vying to #ll the space 

left by the declining American presence in Iraq. A senior Kurdish o!cial summarized this situation, albeit from the Kurds’ pro-American standpoint, by saying that “everyone is interfering in 

government formation except for the party we want to.”3 This interference is generally resented by 

Iraqis who perceive their neighbors as taking advantage of Iraq’s di!cult circumstances in order 

to secure their own interests in a country that has historically been of pivotal importance to the 

region and has tremendous energy potential. 

Regional Cross Currents

With the region’s increased interest in the government formation process, it is perhaps natural that 

Iraq’s main competitors for the premiership frame their candidacy in terms of regional dynamics. 

Ayad Allawi and other members of Iraqiya blame Iraq’s di!cult relations with its Arab neighbors, 

and especially Saudi Arabia on Maliki. They contend that Iraq will be unable to regain its rightful 

place in the region and #nd internal stabilization while he is prime minister.4 Maliki, known for 

portraying himself as a Iraq’s national leader in domestic politics, has in turn tried to signal his 

independence from regional actors by stating that he would rather withdraw from the political 

process than allow any outside forces to interfere in Iraq.5 

The most heavily scrutinized neighbor in this process is, of course, to Iraq’s east. Iraqi politicians 

generally agree that Iran views an Iraqiya-formed, Allawi-headed government as a red line and 

they believe that the Islamic Republic is seeking to forestall such an outcome by encouraging 
a64*1t"MMSJHIUTSFTFSWFE

The Premiership

QBHFt1#t+VOF


the two main Shiite lists of the INA and the SoL to reunify. Ammar al-Hakim, head of one of the 

two main blocs in the INA, recently acknowledged that Iran’s desire for the merger was “undeniable.”6

 Likewise, a senior adviser to Prime Minister Maliki believed that the SoL’s e$ort to break 

from the Shiite alliance had proven premature and the SoL now had to be “realistic” about Iranian 

preferences and coalition-building (especially because it did not #nish #rst in the elections).7 Not 

surprisingly, the statement of principles—widely perceived as being Iranian-brokered—reached 

between the INA and the SoL on May 4 states that the two lists’ prospective nominee for prime 

minister must “commit to...maintaining the unity of the two coalitions” and “pledge” not to form a 

“separate unilateral electoral list” during the term of the next government.8

Thus far, it appears that Maliki has navigated the treacherous regional currents more adroitly 

than his opponents. Maliki’s uninterrupted presence in Iraq contrasts well with Iraqiya leaders’ 

extensive travels to the Gulf and Turkey on the one hand (fueling the perception that Allawi is the 

Arab and U.S.-favored candidate for prime minister) and, on the other hand, the high pro#le, postelection visits by key INA members to Tehran. Maliki’s backers argue that he is neither Iran’s nor the 

United States’ preferred man in Iraq, but ultimately acceptable to both and capable of tip-toeing 

the highwire of Iraq’s two most important strategic relationships. 

National Partnership

The inconclusive election results and competing regional in"uences have generated a sentiment 

among Iraq’s political class that the country remains in transition and requires a government of 

“national partnership” that includes representatives of all of its communities. While some key political #gures expressed disappointment that Iraq’s politics have not been able to progress beyond 

the “sectarian boundary,” there is a basic shared view that a government in which either the Sunni 

or Shia communities were left wholly in opposition would be dangerous to internal stability and 

could provoke further regional competition inside Iraq. 

National partnership may be necessary from a reconciliation standpoint, but it could also 

undermine an active parliamentary opposition, typically a major check on the executive branch’s 

power. In place of this, during the coalition formation process, political parties are seeking guarantees from prime ministerial candidates on collective decision-making. In what is an increasingly 

polarized subject, Maliki supporters disparage e$orts to turn the prime minister into a “tra!c 

cop” as opposed to a decision-maker as a “fatal error against Iraq.”9 They stress that Maliki’s independence is crucial in buttressing Iraqi institutions against the re-emergence of sectarian militias 

(particularly those linked to his political rivals in the Sadrist bloc).10 Non-SoL interlocutors point 

to Maliki’s unilateral decision-making style and tight control of security as potentially representing a threat to Iraq’s democracy. The drawn-out election appeals process has heightened these 

concerns, particularly among Iraqiya members, some of whom accuse Maliki of “embracing” ad hoc 

and politically motivated e$orts as a means to disqualify Iraqiya electoral candidates in order to 

cling to power.11 

Checks and Balances

The sharpness of this back-and-forth illustrates how de#ning the premiership’s power has become 

an integral part of the negotiation over who will occupy the post. Indeed, the Kurdistan Alliance 

has gone as far to state that it does not care which individuals occupy senior posts, and that the 

focus should instead be on ensuring true partnership in government.12 It is also clear that while 

assurances on governing multilaterally will be sought from any nominee, the bar will be set higher 

for a second Maliki term. An understanding of the checks and balances under consideration is 
a64*1t"MMSJHIUTSFTFSWFE

The Premiership

QBHFt1#t+VOF


therefore important because of their potential rami#cations for Iraq’s system of government, and 

also because agreement on this issue might pave the way for the nomination of a prime minister. 

The remainder of this section lists some of the mechanisms currently under consideration.

t Council of Ministers—In addition to Iraq’s now ceremonial presidency, the Council of Ministers (CoM) comprises the rest of Iraq’s executive branch. A senior INA member asserted that 

the prime minister should be an “employee” of the CoM, not issue orders to it, and that the 

constitutional requirement to develop a set of bylaws for the CoM should be undertaken as 

a “national project” by the new government.13 

t Power of the Purse—An outgoing member of the parliament’s #nance committee identi#ed 

the Ministry of Finance as a key check on the prime minister’s power, explaining that while 

the Ministry of Oil generates the money in Iraq, it is the Ministry of Finance that controls 

how it is spent.14 Under Iraqi law, approval from the Finance Ministry is required before 

funds can be released; meaning it can block most projects and investments, even those 

originating from the prime minister. 

t Security Ministries—Pointing to the lackluster performance of the current security ministries in the elections, interlocutors did not generally see these institutions as an e$ective 

legal check on a powerful commander-in-chief. However, according to press reports, ideas 

put forward in the INA-SoL merger talks include establishing a deputy prime minister for 

security a$airs or forming a high-level committee with representation from each Shia bloc 

with full authority over security matters.15

t Speaker of Parliament—With the evolution of Iraq’s presidency to a more symbolic role, the 

speaker of parliament is probably the second most powerful position in government. The 

outgoing speaker, Iyad Samarrai, observed that parliament can be a “balancing force” with a 

“professional and capable” speaker.16 (The implication being that mercurial #gures, such as 

former Speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, are not able to play this role.) 

t The Judiciary—Several interlocutors identi#ed the politicization of the judiciary as the 

“main problem” that needed to be addressed by the coming government, and said that the 

comprehensive reform was required. Iraqiya members in particular charge that pressure 

from Maliki caused the judicial system to lose its “independence and integrity” during the 

vote certi#cation process.17 

t Political Agreement—In addition to formal government structures, coalition agreements 

may go a long way towards de#ning the powers of the next prime minister. For example, 

the initial INA-SoL agreement would establish a 14-person committee that could make 

“binding” strategic decisions on the government and states that the prime minister “will 

be committed to the policies agreed on by the two coalitions in the various aspects of the 

state.” 18

Conclusion

Iraq’s democratic experiment is passing through an important stage. As a SoL MP observed, four 

years ago much of the power was in hands of the U.S., especially in the security realm, but now 

power is under the prime minister.19 For good or for ill, it is clear that Prime Minister Maliki has 

transformed the role and perception of the institution. This has stimulated important deliberations 

over the power of Iraq’s chief executive, and possible checks and balances on its authority. Given 

Iraq’s history of authoritarian government and the complexities of the current political transition, 

resolution of the separation of powers debate may be as important to Iraq’s future as the identity 

of the individual who ultimately occupies the premiership.
a64*1t"MMSJHIUTSFTFSWFE

64*1QSPWJEFTUIFBOBMZTJT
USBJOJOHBOE

UPPMTUIBUQSFWFOUBOEFOEDPOnJDUT


QSPNPUFTTUBCJMJUZBOEQSPGFTTJPOBMJ[FT

UIFmFMEPGQFBDFCVJMEJOH

'PSNFEJBJORVJSJFT
DPOUBDUUIFPGmDF

PG1VCMJD"GGBJSTBOE$PNNVOJDBUJPOT




ABOUT THIS BRIEF

5IJT1FBDF#SJFGXBTXSJUUFOCZ

4FBO,BOF
BQSPHSBNPGmDFSGPS

*SBRQSPHSBNTJOUIF$FOUFSPG

1PTU$POnJDU1FBDFBOE4UBCJMJUZ

0QFSBUJPOTBUUIF6OJUFE4UBUFT

*OTUJUVUFPG1FBDF*UJTCBTFEPO

NFFUJOHTIFMEXJUIBCSPBESBOHF

PGQPMJUJDBMMFBEFSTJO#BHIEBEJO

MBUF.BZ

Endnotes

1. For more on Maliki as the “reference point” for Iraqi politics, see “Maliki’s Iraq Between Two 

Elections,” by Daniel Serwer and Sam Parker. United States Institute of Peace, May 2009.

2. Meeting with State of Law MP, Baghdad (30 May 2010).

3. Meeting with senior Kurdish o!cial, Baghdad (May 28, 2010).

4. Meeting with senior Iraqiya o!cial, Baghdad (May 27, 2010).

5. Nouri al-Maliki interview with al-Summariya Satellite Channel (May 17, 2010).

6. “Ammar al-Hakim on Coalition between Iraqi National Alliance, State of Law,” Ash-Sharq 

al-Awsat (May 26, 2010).

7. Meeting with an o!cial in the Prime Minister’s O!ce of Advisers, Baghdad (May 27, 2010).

8. “Agreement” between the Iraqi National Alliance and the State of Law, Baghdad (May 4, 2010). 

The agreement is not publicly available at this time.

9. See comments “Analysis: Iraq’s Shi’ite Powers Haggle over Powers of PM,” Reuters World Service, 

May 31, 2010.

10. Meeting with State of Law MP, Baghdad (May 30, 2010).

11. Meeting with a senior Iraqiya leader, Baghdad (May 27, 2010).

12. Remarks by Qubad Talabani, Kurdistan Regional Government Representative to the U.S., at the 

Nixon Center in Washington, D.C. (June 8, 2010).

13. Meeting with ISCI politburo member, Baghdad (27 May 2010). Article 85 of the Constitution 

requires the CoM to establish internal by-laws to organize its work.

14. Meeting with independent MP, Baghdad (28 May 2010).

15. See “Analysis: Iraq’s Shiite Powers Haggle over Powers of PM”. 

16. Meeting with Iyad Sammarrae, Baghdad (28 May 2010). 

17. Meeting with a senior Iraqiya vote winner, Baghdad (27 May 2010).

18. “Agreement” between the Iraqi National Alliance and the State of Law, Baghdad (4 May 2010).

19. Meeting with State of Law MP, Baghdad (30 May 2010).

The Premiership

QBHFt1#t+VNF