Polarization between sanctity and treason undermines Iraqi politics and hinders state-building, while realism opens the door to mutual interests, accountability, and inclusive national institutional reform

 

Introduction: The Hypothesis of Cultural Impasse

Since 2003, the Iraqi political mind has been trapped within a suffocating linguistic cage, governed by a stark dichotomy that allows no gray areas: either the absolute “sanctity” of a political or ideological actor, or the complete “treason” of anyone who disagrees with them. This dichotomy is no longer merely a rhetorical description; it has transformed into a mechanism of political and social control, emptying politics of its programmatic content and reducing it to an absolute moral conflict between “us” and “them.”

The premise of this article is that Iraq’s continued captivity to this dichotomy is no longer simply a cultural flaw, but has become a structural obstacle to building a viable state, regulating its ambiguous relationship with the international community, and opening the way for pragmatic policies based on interests rather than mobilization.

 

How did the dichotomy of treason and sanctity take shape?

First: Sectarianism and Power-Sharing as Political Structures

This dichotomy did not emerge in a vacuum, but rather was formed within a political system built after 2003 on the foundations of power-sharing. A report published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace indicates that the Iraqi political system after 2003 “focused on creating sectarian representatives rather than overcoming sectarian divisions,” emphasizing that “sectarianism is deeply entrenched in the rules and practices of the political process.”

In the same vein, Abdel-Ilah Belqaziz wrote that “entrenching the sectarian quota system” was not merely an administrative arrangement, but rather “a political and psychological exercise for society to accept a system carefully constructed in conjunction with the dismantling of the remnants of the unified state and the remnants of the cohesive social fabric.”

In this sense, politics is no longer an arena for competing programs, but a struggle of closed identities, where sanctity is invoked to protect power, and accusations of treason are used to exclude those who are different.

 

Second: Elections and the Discourse of Polarization

This duality is clearly manifested during election seasons. As reported by Al-Araby Al-Jadeed newspaper…

Regarding the 2025 Iraqi elections, Raed Fahmi, Secretary of the Iraqi Communist Party, was quoted as saying, “Sectarianism is a free slogan used by parties before every election and during the distribution of positions in order to blackmail the authorities and manipulate the feelings of Iraqis to achieve their interests, goals, and gains.” He added, “We haven’t witnessed any political or developmental programs; instead, we’ve witnessed threats and intimidation of opponents.”

In this context, the exploitation of religious authority and sacred symbols in electoral conflicts has proliferated, reflecting how “sanctity” is transformed into a tool for political mobilization, rather than a unifying moral value.

 

Why does this duality persist?

First: Political Investment in Polarization

The ruling elites benefit from the continuation of this duality because it absolves them of programmatic accountability. A study published by Carnegie indicates that “accumulated political exclusion” was one of the most important causes of the sectarian crisis in Iraq, which made division a resource for the authorities rather than a burden upon them. As Al-Majalla magazine stated, “Political forces do not want to present themselves under their party banners, but rather prefer to maintain banners that unite the various groups,” emphasizing that “keeping society divided is the only way to guarantee their continued hold on power.”

 

Second: The Absence of Intellectual Alternatives

In a critical review published by Arabi21 of a book on Arab populism, it was noted that the Arab world has lived under “grand narratives: nationalism, socialism, the nation-state, and later political Islam,” which have eroded over time without the emergence of a coherent intellectual alternative. This has created a “deep symbolic void” that has been filled by a simplistic discourse based on stark moral dichotomies.

This void has facilitated the reduction of political complexity to a conflict between “sacred good” and “treacherous evil,” and has sidelined any rational discussion of public policy.

 

Third: The Weakness of Democratic Culture and Populist Discourse

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy notes that “the fragmented state of Iraqi politics is evident in various forms of political discourse,” reflecting the weakness of democratic institutions and the absence of a culture of institutionalized dissent.

Abdul-Razzaq Muhammad al-Dulaimi warns that populist rhetoric is no longer confined to the masses but has begun to “attract educated and intellectual elites,” leading to “a decline in rationality, the promotion of illusions, and incitement to violence.”

The duality of treason and sanctity as a mechanism of social control: This duality is not merely political language, but a mechanism that regulates the public sphere. When a political actor is sanctified, they are exempt from accountability, and when a dissenting voice is branded a traitor, it is excluded from discussion. In this way, the political sphere is closed off before it even begins.

In the Iraqi experience, “sanctity” has been used to justify failure, and “treason” to silence criticism. This pattern is not limited to a single faction; it is almost universal across identities, which makes it all the more dangerous: because it cloaks political conflict in an absolute moral guise and prevents any compromise. Changes within the “Shia House” and the Adaptation of Factions

Recent analyses indicate that the Iraqi landscape is heading towards an internal restructuring within the “Shia House.” While the government seeks to strengthen the state’s role, there are signs of armed factions’ desire to “adapt” to the political system to ensure their continued prominence, especially given the review of relations with Washington through the “Supreme Military Committee” to end the international coalition’s mission.

This shift necessitates moving from a logic of “confrontation” to one of “interests.” Continuing to view relations with the outside world, particularly the United States, through the lens of “subservience” or “absolute resistance” prevents Iraq from leveraging international power balances for the benefit of its people.

 

Flexible Sovereignty and Realistic Independence

In this context, the concept of “flexible sovereignty” emerges as a practical approach to breaking the dichotomy.Sovereignty here does not mean isolation or severance, but rather “the state’s ability to make decisions that serve its national security without isolating itself from the international system.”

Furthermore, “realistic independence” allows Iraq to be “a friend to all without being subservient to any,” a crucial concept to avoid being drawn into regional conflicts that do not serve its interests.

 

The Alienation of Secular and Civil Forces

Despite the protest movements, most notably the October 2019 protests that demanded the restoration of “the homeland” and an end to sectarianism and corruption, secular and civil elites continue to suffer from “alienation” due to their limited influence in decision-making centers.

Breaking the dichotomy of treason and sanctity is the essential path for the return of these forces. When we shift from discussing “identities” to discussing “policies,” intellectuals have a role in offering technical and legal solutions, instead of merely being witnesses or victims. Conclusion: Towards a New Political Awareness

The dichotomy of treason and sanctity is not an inevitable fate, but rather a conscious political choice practiced by elites who benefit from polarization. Overcoming this dichotomy requires:

First, building a political culture based on constructive criticism and programmatic accountability, not on blind loyalty or accusations of treason.

Second, developing a comprehensive national discourse that transcends sub-identities without erasing them, and places the interest of Iraq above the interests of its constituent groups.

Third, strengthening genuine democratic institutions that guarantee competition between programs, not between identities.

Fourth, resisting populist simplification that reduces politics to moral battles.

The question today is not: Who is the traitor and who is the sanctified?

 

Rather, what policies will produce a viable state?

“Political realism” is not a compromise of principles, but the only tool to protect what remains of the state’s integrity. Continuing to imprison society between an “untouchable sanctity” and a “traitor” whose voice is silenced will only lead to the reproduction of the same failures, under new names and slogans.