Shafaq News
With each change of government in Iraq, a recurring
pattern resurfaces: the incoming administration seeks to erase the policy
footprint of its predecessor. Decisions adopted by the state are often
withdrawn, frozen, or subjected to broad review, not necessarily because they
violate the law, but because the political mood has shifted and a new name now
occupies the prime minister’s office.
This dynamic has returned to the forefront as
discussions intensify within the Shiite Coordination Framework (CF), the largest parliamentary bloc, over
the phase following Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani.
Statements from figures inside the State of Law
Coalition led by Nouri Al-Maliki have openly pointed to the possibility of a
sweeping reversal of the current government’s decisions should Al-Maliki return
to the premiership. A similar course unfolded in 2022, when Al-Sudani’s cabinet
reviewed and annulled several decisions taken by Mustafa Al-Kadhimi’s caretaker
government.
Between what is framed as “correction” and what
critics describe as institutional dismantling, a new reality has taken hold
within the Iraqi state: no decision appears guaranteed to endure beyond the
lifespan of the government that issued it. The consequences extend beyond
politics, affecting public projects, administrative performance, and financial
and job stability.
Analysts and observers of Iraqi governance interviewed
by Shafaq News, warn that this cycle, in a country where crises accumulate
faster than solutions, has become a formula for producing administrative
disorder. Governance, they argue, is driven by a mindset of negation rather
than institutional accumulation, undermining long-term planning and continuity.
They agreed that successive waves of decision
cancellations have often served narrow political objectives. By overturning
previous measures, prime ministers send messages to public opinion that earlier
policies were flawed or illegitimate, despite the broader disruption such
reversals cause to state institutions.
The result, they say, is a system in which every
government starts from scratch, adopting a “demolish and rebuild” approach
instead of building on prior frameworks —an approach that systematically delays
national development.
Read more: Iraq begins 90-day countdown to formgovernment as political fault lines re-emerge
Administrative Chaos
“Dangerous behavior and a state of political and
administrative chaos across successive Iraqi governments,” Political analyst
and former diplomat Ghazi Faisal described the phenomenon.
Faisal explained that cabinet decisions, under any
government, are supposed to align with the constitution and with the political,
economic, and social program approved by Parliament and the governing political
blocs, stressing that decisions taken during Al-Sudani’s tenure were made with
the knowledge and coordination of the State Administration Alliance that formed
the government. If such decisions had conflicted with the constitution or the
approved government program, Faisal argued, Parliament should have objected at
the time and moved to block or suspend their implementation.
“If there was no objection from Parliament, no
objection from the State Administration Alliance, and no objection from the CF,
and the measures were implemented within the constitutional powers of the prime
minister, then there is no legal problem, and later objections are unfounded.”
Faisal warned that the repeated pattern of objection,
dismantling, and reversal undermines any genuine opportunity for initiative or
development. “Canceling or suspending projects, starting new ones, and then
ending parliamentary terms leaves the country trapped in poverty, hunger,
illiteracy, and the spread of informal settlements.”
He questioned the logic of such confrontations, noting
that successive prime ministers have emerged from the same political camp and
ideological school. “The government is not shifting from a socialist party to a
liberal one,” he said. “The prime minister comes from the same CF and the same
political orientation. So who is objecting to whom?”
Drawing a comparison with other political systems,
Faisal pointed to the United States, where policy reversals typically reflect
“clear ideological shifts.” He noted that Republican administrations often
challenge Democratic positions on issues such as abortion and healthcare, while
Democratic governments may move to reverse Republican policies on immigration
and related matters. “Such ideological alternation,” he said, “is absent in
Iraq.”
Read more: A Lost Term: Iraq’s weakest parliament since 2003
State of Law stance
For her part, State of Law bloc MP Ibtisam Al-Hilali
confirmed that Al-Maliki, if tasked with forming the next government, would
move to cancel all decisions issued by the caretaker government, including what
she described as improper tax and customs measures, as well as decisions
related to suspending leave, scholarships, and employee transfers.
“Measures taken by the outgoing cabinet and its prime
minister lack constitutional legitimacy,” she argued.
Recent precedent reinforces the controversy. After
assuming office in 2022, Al-Sudani reviewed and canceled a range of decisions
taken by Al-Kadhimi’s caretaker government, particularly senior-level
appointments. At the time, Al-Sudani held a press conference affirming his
commitment to a Federal Supreme Court ruling that limited the powers of
caretaker administrations.
Days ago, Al-Sudani himself sparked widespread
criticism and public backlash after issuing several decisions while his
government was transitioning into caretaker status. These included imposing
taxes on thousands of imported goods, approving senior appointments, among them
positions within the Communications and Media Commission, and issuing decisions
affecting civil servants, such as study leave and the sale of state-owned
vehicles.
Decisions without Guarantees
Political analyst Mujashaa Al-Tamimi argued that this
emerging norm does not constitute reform but instead exposes the absence of
strategic planning and the weakness of the state as an institution independent
of individuals and parties.
Al-Tamimi said Al-Hilali’s remarks about revisiting
all of Al-Sudani’s decisions if Al-Maliki returns to power “are not an
exception, but an extension of a recurring approach, one that Al-Sudani himself
followed.”
“The result is one outcome,” he said, adding that
“decisions taken without any guarantee of continuity, public policies without
institutional memory, and a state managed through demolition and rebuilding
rather than accumulation.”
Al-Tamimi also rejected the notion that this reflects
normal political competition, describing it instead as “a systematic
obstruction of the idea of the state.” As long as there is no cross-government
commitment to public policy, he warned, chaos will remain the rule rather than
the exception.
Legal perspective
From a legal standpoint, expert Aqeel Ouki pointed out
that canceling previous government decisions is a flawed approach rooted in
political targeting rather than public interest, noting that institutional
systems worldwide rely on legal frameworks that ensure decisions serving the
public and the state remain effective and binding, something he said is absent
in Iraq.
Ouki said that some decisions issued by the dissolved
Revolutionary Command Council during Saddam Hussein’s era remain in force
because they addressed legal gaps and administrative deficiencies. “The state
still suffers from legislative shortcomings that force it to rely on decisions
to address urgent needs.”
While the practice is legally unsound, according to
Ouki, there are currently no constitutional or legal remedies to prevent it.
Under Iraq’s existing framework, governments retain the authority to cancel,
amend, or uphold previous decisions, as there is no explicit legal or
constitutional text prohibiting such actions.
Read more: Iraq’s Presidential Race: Kurdish candidates competing for the post
Written and edited by Shafaq News staff.
