The news that an appeals court had overturned the banning of over 500 candidates for the March elections came as a boon to the perceptions of the Iraqi government’s oversight mechanisms. But it turns out that Al-Maliki and his party believe such action by the appeals panels of the Central Criminal Court of Iraq is evidence of US interference and that the un-banning was unconstitutional. The whole issue of under whose legitimate authority this decision rests is exactly what the Iraqi government should be probing, and should be rectifying (if indeed this move was unconstitutional); but to claim that this decision was made because of US interference is kind of ridiculous (keep in mind that VP Biden visited Iraq at the end of January to urge the Iraqi gov’t to reinstate the banned candidates in order for this election to be viewed as free and fair, but had little direct success). Not only is the Al-Maliki government taking a page out of the Iranian government’s playbook, but the need to demonize the US’s role is tangential to what the actual concern is over the banned candidates. Juan Cole provides an in-depth analysis of the decision making processes involved in this dispute, and conspicuously the US was never an integral part of the process nor a relevant actor.

The issue has caused the Independent High Electoral Commission to delay the beginning of campaign season in order to allow enough time for the Federal Supreme Court to decide on the constitutionality of the previous reversal.