Maliki’s legacy is the division of Iraq’s groups

Nouri Al Maliki will not leave the leader’s chair quietly. But much of what ails Iraq is his fault

Haider Al-Abadi, the new Candidate for the position of Iraqi prime minister signing a document during the Iraqi parliament session in Baghdad. (EPA/ALI ABBAS_

No politician has had a greater effect on Iraq since Saddam Hussein than Nouri Al Maliki. No politician, indeed, has done more to create the current situation in Iraq. For that reason alone, it is worth noting that his own Shiite coalition, as well as his backers in Iran and the United States, have turned away from Mr Al Maliki and nominated someone else to take over from the embattled prime minister.

Make no mistake, the situation in Iraq today – where there is barely an Iraq to speak of – has been largely brought about by Mr Al Maliki’s policies and personality. As the political head of the Shia community, he has, since he took the position in 2006, sought to empower that community and its interests at the expense of other groups, in particular the Sunni Arabs and the Kurds. He has tried to pack key ministries and the army with loyalists, drawing anger from other communities.

It was Mr Al Maliki’s heavy-handed repression of protests by Sunni Arabs in Iraq’s western districts that caused a rupture of trust between the two communities. This allowed militant factions, including the Islamic State group, to exploit tensions and gain a foothold.

When the Islamic State launched an attack on Mosul in June, Iraqi soldiers fled, unwilling to face danger for the sake of a government in Baghdad they mistrusted. The fragmentation of Iraq can be traced directly to the mistrust sown by Mr Al Maliki’s actions.

Nor will such tensions easily dissipate, even if he steps aside. The Kurdish north remains determined to form a separate state and intends to hold on to the disputed oil-rich town of Kirkuk. Such is the mistrust between the Kurds and the Shias that the US is now arming the Kurds in order to fight the Islamic State, because the Kurds do not trust the central government in Baghdad to fight for them.

This, then, is Mr Al Maliki’s legacy, the entrenching of divisions that have resulted in an almost de-facto division of the country. His successor will have a hard job knitting Iraq back together.

Yet few would bet against a return for Mr Al Maliki. Already, security forces loyal to him are on the streets of Baghdad, calling for him to continue in office. He may yet cause more irritation for the new government: Mr Al Maliki is too big to be included inside the political tent and could cause too much trouble outside of it. A delicate balancing act will be needed.