Parties in the Iraqi “framework” respond cautiously to al-Sadr’s “debate”.

Parties in the Iraqi “framework” respond cautiously to al-Sadr’s “debate”.

8-22-2022

Parties in the Iraqi framework respond cautiously to al-Sadr’s debateParties within the forces of the Shiite coordination framework cautiously supported the call of the leader of the Sadrist movement, Muqtada al-Sadr, for a public debate with the leaders of the “framework”, according to a tweet to this effect. While reactions varied within the coordinating framework forces about al-Sadr’s call, which seemed to be intended by his first opponent within the framework forces, the leader of the State of Law coalition, Nuri al-Maliki. While the State of Law Coalition ignored al-Sadr’s invitation to a public debate, the Sadiqoun bloc of “Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq” announced its support for the principle of public debate, through its spokesman, Mahmoud al-Rubaie, who said in a tweet on Twitter, that “Direct public debates are one of the most visible democratic methods to the public and revealing hidden matters.” He added: “I support the call for it between a representative of the (current) leadership and a representative of the (Framework) leadership, to put the points on the letter, provided that the result of the debate is recognition of the facts, the constitution and the law, and an end to the crisis.”
In the same context, the head of the “Irada” bloc in the Iraqi parliament, Hanan Al-Fatlawi, one of the leaders of the “Coordination Framework”, announced her readiness to accept a public debate. “I accept the debate that Mr. Muqtada al-Sadr called for, provided that Mr. ensures my safety after the debate,” she said in a tweet. Abu Kell, a leader in the “Wisdom” movement led by Ammar al-Hakim, also announced his support for the public debate demanded by the leader of the Sadrist movement. Abu Kell called on both the Sadrist movement and the coordination framework to choose a representative for them to hold one or more public debates, similar to the debates in the US presidential elections.
Al-Sadr had announced that the proposal he submitted recently to the United Nations during his meeting with the UN envoy, Jenin Plaschaert, at his headquarters in the city of Najaf, did not receive a response from the coordination framework. Al-Sadr said, in a statement, that “the answer was through the mediator, and it did not include anything about reform, nor about the demands of the revolutionaries, nor what the people are suffering, and they did not give what is happening any importance at all,” adding: “I will not sit with the corrupt.”
In the same context, Saleh Muhammad al-Iraqi, who is close to the leader of the Sadrist movement, Muqtada al-Sadr, and is known as his minister, considered that the “intensification of the dispute” within the coordination framework prevented the formation of a tested government, he said. He added, in a tweet to him on Twitter, that there have been developments during the recent period, which he counted as outcomes of the “reform revolution” that he has been adopting for some time, including the fear of some from the Integrity Commission, and its disclosure of some minor corruption files, “and we are waiting for the big heads of corruption, and the resignation of a minister.” He is accused of corruption (in reference to the resigned Finance Minister Ali Allawi) and covering up the corrupt, and the tried is not tested.” Al-Sadr’s minister also considered that among the fruits of that were “confirmed leaks (in reference to al-Maliki’s recordings) in which he incites murder, sabotage, fighting and strife, so that his religion would be revealed to his students before his opponents.” Al-Sadr revealed that “the major Sunni and Kurdish blocs, and even some Shiites, agreed to dissolve parliament, hold early elections, hold the corrupt accountable, and make some constitutional amendments,” as this was considered one of the indicators of the success of his calls for reform, in addition to “the bankruptcy of the corrupt blocs, and their inability to defend For themselves, except by imitating the reformers’ footsteps with demonstrations and sit-ins on the one hand, and their going to neighboring countries to mediate on the other” (in reference to the visit made by the leader of “the Wisdom Movement” Ammar al-Hakim to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia). He also considered that their refusal to publicly debate led to “exposing them before the people, weakening their position, and increasing sympathy with the revolution,” revealing that “the dispute between them intensified, so that they were unable to form a tested government that was forbidden by the reference and rejected by the people in advance.”

rawabetcenter.com