2 days ago
Legacy of Saddam-Era: How old laws cripple Iraq's legislative future
Shafaq News
More than two decades after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, the legacy of Iraq's dissolved Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) continues to obstruct the country's legislative development.
Despite successive parliamentary sessions since 2005, many foundational laws remain stalled due to political disagreements and intra-bloc rivalries. This gridlock is exacerbated by the continued enforceability of thousands of RCC-era decrees—many considered outdated or repressive.
Legislative Paralysis and RCC Residue
At the end of each parliamentary term, unresolved legislative proposals are routinely carried over to the next, creating a backlog that hampers Iraq's ability to enact meaningful reform. According to officials, this stagnation is compounded by the survival of nearly 6,000 RCC decisions—some criticized for their authoritarian nature, particularly those establishing special courts or intensifying penalties under Iraq's legal code.
Despite repeated calls from senior figures, including President Abdul Latif Rashid in 2023, for a comprehensive legal review, Parliament has largely failed to abolish or amend most of these decrees. Many remain legally binding under Article 130 of Iraq's constitution, despite clashing with international human rights norms and democratic principles.
RCC's Institutional Legacy
Formed after the 1968 Ba'athist coup, the Revolutionary Command Council served as Iraq's highest authority until its dissolution by the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority in 2003. Under Saddam Hussein, the RCC wielded unchecked legislative and executive powers. Many of its rulings were instrumental in consolidating authoritarian rule and suppressing dissent.
Legal experts estimate that 5,903 of these decisions are still in force.
A joint committee between the Presidency and Parliament's Legal Committee was created to classify and review these decisions. Legal expert Ali al-Tamimi noted that RCC decrees even outnumber Iraq's key laws, including the Penal Code. 'They were issued under the 1970 interim constitution and remain in effect unless formally repealed,' he said, adding that most of these decrees were used to suppress political opposition and established exceptional courts that contradict international law.
'Parliament is capable of repealing them all at once or selectively amending a few.'
Al-Tamimi also stressed that the current government's ministerial program explicitly calls for repealing RCC decisions that conflict with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international treaties.
Efforts at Repeal and Political Resistance
While Parliament has repealed select RCC decisions since 2007, broader repeal efforts have stalled. Raed al-Maliki, a member of the parliamentary legal committee, said he compiled and amended the RCC decisions and submitted a legislative proposal—but it was blocked. 'The Council is simply not prepared to address this file,' he told Shafaq News.
Al-Maliki noted that while the current legislative session managed to pass some laws, including the General Amnesty Law and amendments to the Personal Status Law, it also witnessed repeated disruptions, session delays, and a stagnant agenda.
'Important laws carried over from previous terms were subject to political agreements,' even though such laws could be passed with a two-thirds majority without needing full consensus.
He further explained that 'some draft laws face no disagreement within Parliament itself. The real disputes happen outside Parliament—among bloc leaders—who prevent such laws from being put to a vote.'
In 2023, Legal Committee Head, Ribwar Hadi Abdul Rahman, announced renewed efforts to repeal RCC decrees through a new committee with the Presidency. He clarified that such decrees do not require replacement legislation. 'RCC decisions are not amended—they are either in force or abolished,' he said.
Some initial steps focused on repealing decrees related to land disputes in Sinjar and Zummar. Additional efforts have targeted RCC-era confiscations of Kurdish and Turkmen lands in Kirkuk—widely viewed as part of the former regime's demographic manipulation strategy.
One of the most enduring and contentious RCC legacies is Penal Code No. 111 of 1969, which remains largely intact. Articles 225 and 226 criminalize public insults to state institutions or officials, carrying penalties of up to seven years in prison. Ironically, these provisions have been applied to political forces once persecuted under Saddam's regime.
Structural Barriers to Reform
Legal expert Qatada Saleh Fanjan told Shafaq News that 'most important laws are subject to bargaining and consensus among political factions.' He noted that lawmakers often lack independent voting authority, as their decisions depend on the approval of party leaders. 'Parliament should focus on producing laws—not obstructing them,' he said, warning that 'the subordination of Parliament's leadership and its members to political agendas in conflict with the law has caused the failure of many legislative efforts.'
Al-Maliki echoed this view, confirming that many laws remain hostage to factional calculations despite lacking real opposition within Parliament. The root of the obstruction, he emphasized, lies in political leadership outside the chamber.
Political analyst Aid al-Hilali warned that lawmaking in Iraq remains hostage to sectarian and ethnic rivalries. 'There is no collective national will, and partisan interests often override the public good,' he said.
Al-Hilali added that Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani has repeatedly tried to activate legislative reforms through his government program, but political blocs have continued to use outdated laws as bargaining tools, stalling or weakening many reform efforts.
He cautioned that the delay in passing new laws and the persistence of RCC-era legislation 'not only harms the government's performance but also undermines public trust in the political system as a whole.'
The continued coexistence of repressive legacy laws and stalled modern legislation, he argued, 'has created a confused legal environment that grants privileges to certain groups at the expense of justice and state institutions.'
Written and edited by Shafaq New staff.
