Baghdad – A mere tweet from US President Donald Trump was enough to rattle politicians clutching to power and those vying for it. Some even went as far as pandering to a real estate or pharmaceutical mogul, treating him as a special presidential envoy. Where, then, is this alleged sovereignty they speak of, especially when lawmakers from the largest winning parliamentary bloc cannot even agree on a prime minister for the next government?
This triggered a scramble, leaving everyone desperately calculating how to appease Washington. Social media and news platforms erupted with heated debates and mutual accusations over the essence of sovereignty and Iraq's future. Yet, those at the helm forget, or deliberately ignore, that Iraq’s sovereignty has been compromised since the imposition of harsh international resolutions and the sanctions regime triggered by the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait on Aug. 2, 1990, the fallout of which persists to this day.
Despite the overthrow of the former regime in 2003, sovereignty remained ambiguous and hostage to external forces. UN Security Council Resolution 1483, adopted on May 22, 2003, explicitly designated the coalition forces that invaded Iraq as "occupying powers." While this designation carries specific rights and obligations, these forces overstepped international treaties and conventions, including the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their 1977 protocols. They imposed fundamental structural changes beyond their mandate. They engineered a political system to their liking, establishing a political process built on an ethnic and sectarian quota system and the division of state roles.
This trajectory began with the formation of the Iraqi Governing Council, setting a precedent for successive governments. Loyalty within political factions became rooted in mutual favors and political clientelism. Demographics, or "components," became the primary basis for representation, overshadowing citizenship, individual competence, and personal integrity. This component-based model was legally enshrined in the 2004 Transitional Administrative Law and later cemented in the 2005 permanent constitution, appearing twice in the preamble and throughout Articles 9, 12, 49, 125, and 142. It was packaged alongside rhetoric about maintaining balance and parity without discrimination or exclusion, phrases that merely serve as euphemisms for sectarian quotas and the carving up of state institutions.
Twenty-three years have passed since the overthrow of the former regime, yet state-building has only grown more complex. This is driven by the absence of a modern concept of the state, one based on citizenship rather than demographic components, coupled with a deficit of, and even contempt for, legitimacy. As long as the status quo relies on "consensual democracy," despite the holding of elections and repeated rhetoric about the peaceful transfer of power, the outcome invariably favors ethnic and sectarian factionalism over equal citizenship. There are fundamental differences between a component-based identity and citizenship; the latter is rooted in freedom, equality, justice, partnership, and participation. As I often repeat: "We are partners in this homeland, and we must be active participants in its decision-making."
While citizenship is an individual status based on the relationship between a person and the state, where the state consists of free citizens rather than a union of demographic components, the component-based model dictates rights rooted in quotas, loyalty, and political spoils. This elevates sectarian or ethnic affiliation above citizenship and a unifying national identity, stripping the individual of personal choice. Consequently, the state loses its unity of decision, will, and action.
As a result, there is no unified stance on major national issues. This includes restricting weapons to state hands, the presence of US and Turkish military bases, and the actual Iranian influence entrenched within state institutions, despite its recent decline. The same disunity plagues constitutional amendments, the enforcement of a flawed and mine-laden constitution, disputed territories, oil disputes, Federal Supreme Court rulings, border crossings, Iraqi funds held in the US Federal Reserve, and matters of arms and procurement.
Furthermore, we must not forget, or pretend to forget, that Iraq is bound by the 2008 Strategic Framework Agreement with the United States, which effectively transformed a military occupation into a contractual one. This remains true despite the withdrawal of US forces in late 2011 and their subsequent return as experts and advisors following ISIS’s capture of Mosul in 2014 at the Iraqi government's request. Notably, while the Iraqi parliament passed a resolution demanding the withdrawal of foreign forces, including US troops, it did so without consensus; lawmakers from two distinct "components", as some prefer to call them, boycotted the voting session.
Sovereignty is not a matter of slogans, political outbidding, or bickering. Rather, it is a concept denoting the extension of the state’s supreme authority over its territory—a principle coined by the Greek philosopher Aristotle, meaning the state's capacity to govern itself without external interference. This concept was later developed by philosophers such as France’s Jean Bodin, England’s Thomas Hobbes, and the Netherlands' Hugo Grotius, ultimately defining the state's inherent right to self-determination.
Abdul Hussein Shaban is an academic and thinker.