March 7th has passed with no referendum on the security agreement (SOFA) concluded between the U.S. and Iraq. Iraqis still do not know the Government’s or Elections Commission’s motives for disregarding a law passed by a majority in Parliament, within a supposedly parliamentary political system. None of the politicians even bothered to provide any justification for it.

Late in 2008, the al-Maliki government promised to hold a referendum on the security agreement within six months. However, for “logistical” reasons, it regretted continuing to be unable to hold it during provincial council elections in January 2009. In mid-2009, the door was open for the referendum to be held during the Kurdistan parliamentary elections in the middle of the same year.

But the government once again rescheduled the referendum – more “logistical” reasons – saying it planned to synchronise it with the general parliamentary elections.

The story is by no means the first of its kind in post-2003 Iraq, but may stand out as a model of Iraq’s leaders’ policy to please and pacify their citizens by words and promises alone.

The story started in November, when the Iraqi government approved the security agreement with the U.S., with only one of the 28 ministers present dissenting against it. The agreement set 2011 as the target date for U.S. troops’ evacuation of Iraq. The agreement incorporated many articles on a long-term military, economic, scientific and educational “strategic partnership” between the two countries.

Al-Maliki’s government then faced difficulties passing that agreement through parliament. Strong opposition from Muqtada al-Sadr’s bloc, the Shiite Fadeelah Party, and the Sunni Accord and National Dialogue Fronts surfaced. The four political groups viewed the agreement as a threat to Iraq’s sovereignty and a legitimisation of the occupation.

Opposition was particularly critical of Articles 12 and 19 of the agreement, which provided legal immunity for U.S. soldiers, and prevented inspection of U.S. official mail. They also gave the foreign troops unrestricted freedom of movement in and out of the country.

After protracted discussions, the two Sunni parties, through an initiative from the National Dialogue Front leader, Saleh Al-Mutlaq, allowed passage of the agreement. Their condition was that Maliki’s government should offer two pledges. The first would be to hold a public referendum no later than July 2009. Accordingly, the agreement would be invalid if three governorates rejected it. The second pledge would be to implement the “Political Reform Document”, outlined by Al-Mutlaq. This document provided for amendment of the law on Baath eradication and for the restoration of balance to security and government bodies, as well as releasing the predominantly Sunni political detainees.

The government agreed, endorsing them through a separate act. It allocated US$99 million for funding the planned referendum. The agreement passed, with groups most antagonistic to the US presence eventually voting in its favour. The Al-Fadeelah Party boycotted the session, with the Shiite leader, Muqtada Al-Sadr declaring a three-day “political mourning” to protest the passage of the agreement.

Iraq’s National Accord Front spokesman and a leading Iraq Islamic Party figure, Mr. Saleem Al-Jabouri, considered November 27, the day set for holding the referendum, a victory achieved by his bloc. He said: “the issue of accepting or rejecting the security agreement is now in the hands of the Iraqi people. The people will decide the fate of this agreement.”

Mr. Al-Jabouri added, “The time given for holding the public referendum will enable the Iraqi people to realise the degree of the commitment by both the U.S. and Iraq to the details of the security agreement and the pertinent political reform document, also for approval by parliament.”

Contrary to Mr. Al-Jabouri’s hopes, time was not at all sufficient. Just a few days ago, the Iraqi leaders celebrated the “electoral wedding”.

Meanwhile, the political reform document remained shelved by both the government and parliament.

And al-Mutlaq was stabbed in the back, excluded from the elections due to his links to the Baath Party.

The pledge to hold a referendum on the security agreement was once again indefinitely postponed, again for “logistical” reasons.

During a month-long elections campaign, none of the politicians spoke of a referendum on SOFA. They did not even give any justification or apology for their failure to implement it.

Al-Jabouri, who was at that time keen on hearing people’s opinions on the agreement, today says:

“The political blocs are no longer concerned with this issue, and are even willing to shun it, because they are preoccupied with the elections. They do not view it as an issue worth focusing on during election season.”

Practically speaking, there were no reasons for the referendum not to take place. There was money for it and a perfect chance to do it: election day. Turnout would have been high and it would have saved the Iraqi government money. Besides, there was sufficient time, as the case would only require issuance of voting cards.

Now, those who were to be polled on it forget even the subject of the proposed referendum. It seems meaningless to set another new date.

President Obama announced the withdrawal of all US combat forces from Iraq by the end of August 2010. There probably won’t even be an Iraqi government by then, let alone a public referendum. The remaining non-combat troops, meanwhile, would pull out before the end of 2011. Troops are the only sticking point on the agreement. Economic, scientific and educational cooperation with the US does not put Maliki’s enemies off the agreement.

SOFA has become de facto law, as have many similar laws in the past. Article 140 met a similar fate. It was due to be officially implemented by the end of 2007. 15 other constitutional articles suffered the same way. All were supposed to be implemented by mid-2006 and focused on defining the form of the new government system in the country, the powers of its institutions, foreign affairs and the relationship between the central government and the provinces.

These events do not disturb policy makers at present, as they celebrate today what they agreed to call “the electoral wedding”. 37 people were killed – a “reasonable price”, as Iraqi newspapers have said, for that wedding? Regarding the referendum and other suspended laws, they can always be postponed a while longer.