Via the BBC: Iraq VP vetoes new election law
One of Iraq’s two vice-presidents has vetoed part of the country’s new election law, putting the parliamentary polls scheduled for January in doubt.
Tariq al-Hashemi, a Sunni Arab, revoked Article 1 of the law and called for the representation in parliament of displaced people to increase to 15%.
[…]
Mr Hashemi said he objected to Article 1 of the law because it did not give voice to the four million Iraqis, mostly Sunni Arabs, whom he believed had fled the country in the wake of the sectarian conflict triggered by the US-led invasion in 2003.
Under the text approved by the Council of Representatives, the proportion of "compensatory seats" in the chamber representing the displaced would be set at 5% of the total. Mr Hashemi wants the figure raised to 15%.
"I sent a letter to parliament asking for the law to be amended. Parliament said I could veto the contested first article, which is what I have done today," he told a news conference in Baghdad.
Given the length of time it took to get the original bill passed, this veto may mean a crisis in regards to the elections, which (according to the piece) have a constitutional deadline set for the end of January. Further, the electoral authorities have stated that they need 90 days to properly prepare once the law is finalized (a deadline that has already passed).
Since the issue is one of relative representation of various sectarian groups within Iraq, this will not be an easy issue to settle. The report also notes that the Kurds are not happy with some of the seat allocations as it pertains to their share of extra seats that the law envisions. As such, a broader fight could break out as the veto is addressed. Exactly what options the legislature has in the face of a (partial) veto, I do not know.
To my comparativist colleagues out there: anyone know of another case where a vice president has a veto power let alone one that can be used against only a portion of a bill?
Sphere: Related ContentThe views expressed in the comments are the sole responsibility of the person leaving those comments. They do not reflect the opinion of the author of PoliBlog, nor have they been vetted by the author.
November 18th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
As I noted at some of my Iraq posts back in 2005-06 (the URL should go to that topical “block”), Iraq has a three-person presidency council. So this is not actually a VP exercising a veto. The constitution stipulates that the presidency is collective and any of its powers may be exercised by any one of its members. One of those is veto power, which requires a 3/5 vote to override. (One of the members is “president” in a ceremonial sense, but all 3 are presidents in an operational sense.)
As to your specific question, Cyprus used to have a two-person collective presidency, but unlike Iraq, one (Greek) was defined as president and the other (Turkish) was defined as VP. Yet either one could veto bills. Unlike Iraq, each of these co-presidents (which is what they really were) was popularly elected–by his respective community. Also, unlike Iraq, the Cyrpriot president is head of government. (Iraq is a parliamentary system, other than this unusual (co-)presidency with an actual veto.)
I don’t think this is technically a partial (or “line-item”) veto, or else the bill, without the vetoed provisions, would be law (with the possibility of an override to restore the vetoed provision). Or, as in numerous Latin American constitutions, the bill as amended after the partial veto, would go back to parliament in some sort of privileged position on the agenda. Now, maybe that happens here. But I do not think so. I get the impression that the bill as a whole is vetoed (absent an override).
November 18th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Thanks for the clarification. Either I missed those posts or forgot about them. It certainly makes more sense to describe this as a presidential council–that’s what I get for taking institutional cues from the press.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
That’s for sure!
The constitution talks about “the president” throughout, but one of the late amendments that brought Sunni actors along was a transitory passage tacked on at the end that states that wherever the constitution says “president” it refers to the “presidency council.”
I am not sure how long that provision is in effect for. This might be its last gasp, one way or another.
November 19th, 2009 at 11:48 am
A clip I saw on Mosaic, via Link TV (originally from Al Arabiya, I think), showed the chairman of the presidency council (otherwise known as “the president”) stating that the council had voted to “approve” the law, but to recommend that parliament take up amendments to objectionable articles “at a later date.”
The piece was not the clearest on some finer points, and later referred like the rest of the media to a “veto” by a “vice president.” Nonetheless, I got the impression that it was the Council of Ministers (cabinet), not the presidency council, that stopped the process. That is, it reacted by ordering the electoral commission to suspend preparations for the elections, rather than reconvene parliament to deal with the vetoed articles. I also got the impression from all of this that the veto is a “partial veto,” after all. That is, that all of the rest of the bill could become law, with parliament only reconsidering the vetoed provisions.
If my impressions–which could be incorrect, of course–are on the right track, then the cabinet has acted outside the constitution, putting the election in jeopardy.
November 19th, 2009 at 11:57 am
This is all quite intriguing and requires further scrutiny.
December 7th, 2009 at 9:12 am
[...] month I commented on the ongoing quest by the Iraqis to pass a new electoral law to facilitate elections next year [...]