By Tahseen Wsu Abdullah
The title of this article begins with an important question: “Who rules in Iraq?” This question carries a number of complex meanings, because the purposes beyond the question want to explore whether it is not clear who rules in Iraq. If so, then not everyone can see and embody what rules Iraq.
To find the answer to this question, we must begin by asking whether there is anything else that governs the political process and governance of the country except the official institutions, which depict themselves in the form of the state. Of course, in a state like Iraq where the constitution is not the test and mujra’s of the parties, other actors can play their role and see this gap as an opportunity to organize their agenda based on their complex interests.
The expression of the deep state, or deep power in Iraq, is widely discussed at the level of the political, media and popular elite, as a clear indication that there are other parties or actors besides the official state institutions that are driving the situation. The situation in Iraq has led observers and analysts to conclude that the deep state has had a negative impact on the political equation and the principles and form of the state on which it was built, is now completely abolished.
The concept of deep state, or state within state, is considered one of the most common terms to describe unelected governing bodies that control the fate of the state, such as the army, parties, companies, businessmen and media. This provides an opportunity for these informal agencies to direct the activities of official state institutions and influence their political, economic and security decisions.
If we look at the situation in Iraq, we can clearly see that the deep state has two forms: a formal form, namely the political, military and economic figures who take leadership positions in the state and officially run the state, whether by election or appointment. This has been very clearly seen in the past. The second is an informal form, where political, military, militia and economic figures informally run the state and its institutions. Through their influence on officials, they can do what they want, but not in their own names. In recent years, this has been the most common form of the deep state that has been fully felt and undeniable in Iraq.
In Iraq, former Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who served two consecutive terms, is considered the first to establish a deep state, the first to divide members of the Da’wah party among ministries since the components of the deep state are present in Iraq, in parliament and in ministries. There is a common opinion now that in the cabinet of Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, what prevents the agreements and then implement them, especially the agreement between the Kurdistan Region and Baghdad, the parties mentioned. These parties often do not hide this through their statements and meetings and openly express their opposition to the agreements.
Another characteristic of the deep state is that they believe that political and financial decisions must be prepared outside the government institution and transferred to the government institution and given official form. This is now clearly happening in the Iraqi political process. In addition to common interests, the deep state has principles and values that believe in the need to remain in government institutions and struggle to establish them, even if it forces them to resort to illegal means They are governmental in their values and contents.
So, it can be said that what governs Iraq is practically a deep state, but it gives it legitimacy and officiality through official institutions, to make it seem that the process is now run by official state institutions. The deep state usually seeks to protect government institutions, which guarantee it the achievement of its stated and unstated goals. While Iraqi political parties are working to eliminate government institutions, in a way that is not suitable for public service.