Whoever watches meetings of the Maliki government will experience a wave of depression and disappointment, and perhaps other, less passive emotions too. The mere fact that there are four chairmen, with Maliki in the middle, sitting at the head of a huge long table with forty-two minsters, half-hidden by bouquets of flowers, sitting across it, is a sign of abandoned responsibility and lust for the trappings of power at the expense of conducting state business and official duties. The most obvious characteristic of the new government (which is still incomplete) is the pursuit and satisfaction of the personal whims of its members, by giving them posts that sound important. It doesn't matter if they didn't have any remits because a post is desired for its name foremost, and secondly for what it brings in money and perks for its occupant. As for the original aim in creating it, which is supposedly serving the state and society, this seems very distant from Maliki's thinking and that of members of his government. Otherwise, what does it mean to have three deputies to the Prime Minister? If we accept that there is a need for one deputy prime minister from the Iraqia list – the second partner in the coalition government together with the National Alliance (the bloc which Midhat Al Mahmoud's court allowed to be formed after the elections, in violation of the constitution) – what is the point of having another deputy prime minister from the Prime Minister's own bloc? Is it to create a ‘senior' post for Hussein Shahristani, who Maliki for some reason seeks to please by every possible means? Does the Presidency, which is a ceremonial post with no executive powers, actually need three vice-presidents, or four? If the president doesn't do anything, as Maliki once said, what will his deputies do? Is it really so bad for a politician to retire after spending years in high office? The vice-presidential candidates are in or approaching their seventies, while the president himself is octogenarian. Don't they feel the time has come for them to retire? Or is ‘dying in the chair' irresistible for them? Finding posts for persons, rather than finding persons for posts, seems to be what preoccupies current Iraqi politicians most. They are not really looking for positions of service. We have never seen anyone relinquish or refuse a post because they were not persuaded as to its merit, remit, viability or the possibilities it offers for the incumbent to serve society. On the contrary, what we see is the exact opposite. The former PM, Ibrahim Jaafary, for example, never attended parliamentary sessions during the last parliament, except on very rare occasions. Now, he rarely misses a session. The reason is that he has been given the post of ‘President of the National Alliance bloc' – an honorary post without powers or function. It's a mere name, but it does give Jaafary the title of ‘president' which he missed dearly after he was forced out of the premiership five years ago. Even the post of ‘National Security Advisor' which Paul Bremer invented for mere American reasons, and appointed Muwaffaq Rubaiei to, has now been revived. It has been given to Jaafary's deputy, Falih Al Fayyadh, who failed to get a parliamentary seat in the last election. Fayyadh was an ardent Maliki critic before his appointment. This is another post which has no powers and doesn't provide any service to the nation. Maliki abolished it in 2009 because it was not needed. But that need has suddenly arisen; in order, it seems, to woo the support of an opponent. Khudair AL Khuzaei, who used to ‘worship', according to him, at the ministry of education for five years, wants to be the third, fourth or even fifth vice-president! Because he invariably gives some religious underpinning to his views and actions, he asserts it to be his ‘religious duty' to be vice-president of the republic! If we neglect the perks that the post offers to its occupant, such as money and official position, where is the worshipful dimension to this post, that only carries a name but no remit? How can His Reverence worship if he does not have any duties? And, finally, does His Reverence really believe that such justifications are swallowed by people any more in the era of digital communications, internet and satellite TV? Half of the forty-two ministries have no real function; otherwise, what is the need for ten state ministries which do not do anything at all? Has the ‘Ministry of State for the Spokesmanship' changed anything in the work of the official spokesman, aside from giving him the title of ‘His Sovereignty the Minister'? Has he managed to improve the government's image for example? Or the opposite is true? Is there a real need for a ‘Ministry of National Reconciliation'? This ministry reminds me of the ‘Ministry of Unity' under the early Baath rule in the 1970s. What has its predecessor, ‘the Ministry of National Dialogue' achieved for the Ministry of National Reconciliation' to complete? Or is it another opportunity for another member of the Maliki party to ‘worship'? Real reconciliation is achieved through the abolishing of the sectarian quota system and discrimination among citizens, and through the efficient management of resources and institutions, and fair distribution of wealth – not through wasting public money on empty posts and ghost ministries. Reconciliation can be achieved through establishing justice and fairness for the oppressed, and though altruism, frugality and giving up perks. Finally, reconciliation can be achieved through peaceful transfer of power and commitment to respecting the results of elections, not insisting on the ‘right of the Shia' to take the premiership! No wonder Iraqis are angry with Maliki and his government; the biggest among Iraqi governments ever, and maybe the world's governments (there are only 24 ministers in China). People see their money squandered to create posts and jobs that do not provide any service at all except to satisfy the ego of this follower or gag the voice of that opponent, while services are deteriorating day by day, and millions of people remain out of work. The vociferous demonstrations that swept Baghdad on 25th February will not stop; on the contrary, they will multiply in the future. The government handling of the demonstrations, by imposing curfew and misleading people that the religious authority doesn't approve of them, won't work. The religious establishment made its position very clear. It stands with the people. It's really shameful of the government to resort to deception in order to mislead people who no longer care what others think, no matter how highly they respect them. People care about their interests and how they can allay the suffering they are under. Accusing the demonstrators of being Baathists will inflame protests further and make protesters more adamant on continuing their protests. After all, Baathists are also citizens, and they have full rights, including the right to protest. Mr Maliki has no right to discriminate against them. The modern state is built on preserving people's rights (even criminals have rights), resorting to the law before which people should be equal, and renouncing all forms of discrimination and holding to account whoever practices it. The second Maliki government is no less than a scandal. It has exposed how desperate its members are for hollow posts, and how disdainfully it regards people's interests and public money. No one will believe the pledge that Maliki made that he won't stand for a third term, since he made the same pledge in 2006 but never kept it. The decision to reduce salaries of senior officials is an admission by the government that it has trespassed over public money in the last few years. This law must be applied retroactively so that all monies paid to senior officials are returned to the state treasury. The current crisis won't go away until new elections are held which will allow the electorate to reprioritize their choices in the light of their recent bitter experiences. But, before this, there is an urgent need to enact a law that lays a new basis for political competition, party financing and election campaigning, and will prohibit the exploitation of religion, or state institutions, for political purposes.
