Seven months after the elections, the crisis between the two main coalitions in the Iraqi parliament is intensifying and the Federal Supreme Court has intervened, taking part in the conflict. Shiite leader Muqtada al Sadr has launched a ferocious attack against what he calls the blockade, that is, the group of newly elected parliamentarians who occupy a third of the seats in the classroom hinders the appointment of the prime minister and the president. And he accused the Supreme Court of making shameful decisions that prevented the interim government from intervening in support of the population crushed by the current cost of living crisis.
The recent tension between the two blocs (Saving the homeland, led by Al Sadr, with 200 seats in parliament, and the rival Coordination Framework, headed by former Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, with 83 deputies) has emerged with the public crisis after the increase in the prices of bread and oil, which directly affects 35 percent of Iraqis below the poverty line.
There have been many demonstrations in several Iraqi cities and in the Kurdish autonomous region. Mustafa al Kadhimi, head of the interim government, has promoted a law to calm the prices of basic foodstuffs, in order to guarantee them to the weakest sections of the population and reduce public discontent. But the supreme court rejected the rule, saying that a provisional government is not authorized to pass new laws or change existing ones.
Al Sadr accused the court of siding with the obstructionist bloc and against the people. On the other hand, the leader of the rule of law coalition, Nouri al Maliki, praised the recent decision of the court, stressing that “the bill for food safety was illegal, and the resolution that banned it guaranteed the protection of the public money from embezzlement that would have benefited the corrupt ”.
President Barham Saleh attempted to rescue the government from deadlock, and therefore posed the following question: Should the government intervene or not to resolve the food crisis? In response, the court retracted, stating that yes, the government has a right. This response was a blow to those who attempted to question the powers of the government.
(Translation by Francesco De Lellis)