In Iraq, most parties are experiencing an identity struggle within themselves, a contradiction between what they say and what they do.
There are parties that emerged from the womb of ideology or extremism, and then gradually found themselves in the world of politics, and in the corridors of the economy. And why do we work?
"Within the same party, four fronts are at loggerheads:
1️⃣ The economic wing sees the ministry as an opportunity, and the measure of success has the size of the return.
2️⃣ The political wing measures things by agreements, deals and managing balances.
3️⃣ The military wing has its own logic, looking at force and deterrence and its position in the equation of conflict.
4️⃣ The cultural and ideological wing carries an exemplary discourse on values, identity and the message of the party.
Each one of these works hard… but each in a different direction.
That is where the real problem begins:
A politician builds a settlement, and military behavior destroys it.
The economist makes a deal, and he is confronted with an ideological discourse that he openly rejects.
The dogmatic one addresses people in perfect language, while the reality within the party presents another picture.
Contradictions emerge as a continuous state, not individual behaviors.
This is a sign of the absence of identity.
A party that has no clear definition of itself becomes a separate island. Over time, the problem is no longer just internal, it is reflected in the audience. People pick up the contrast faster than leaders think, and confidence begins to erode. And when trust weakens, followers lose their loyalty to the party.
Some parties were able to postpone this moment. How?
With a charismatic leader holding the strings in his hand and preventing the collision from exploding. But this treatment is temporary, it's management of the contradiction, it's not resolved. And when this leader is absent, the contradictions turn into real fissures.
And here we enter the most dangerous phase:
Fragmentation of identity leads to fragmentation of loyalties.
The overlap of identities and affiliations in Iraq makes the unification of loyalty a condition for any real national project.
A state cannot be built on sporadic loyalties: loyalty to the interest here, loyalty to the idea there, and loyalty to power elsewhere.
Parties that raise the slogan of nation-building, and have not yet settled their identity, live in a cruel paradox, they call for the unification of the country, but they are unable to unite themselves.
comments