<div id="firstBodyDiv" data-bind-html-content-type="article" data-bind-html-compile="article.body" data-first-article-body="
And she was Federal Supreme Court in Iraq (The highest judicial authority), announced Wednesday, that it does not have constitutional authority to dissolve parliament.
She said that on the Iraqi parliament He dissolved himself in the event of failure to perform his constitutional duties, considering that "The stability of the political process requires everyone to abide by the provisions of the Constitution and not to exceed it, and no authority may continue to exceed the constitutional periods indefinitely.".
The dissolution of Parliament is a basic demand of the leader of the Sadrist movement, Muqtada al-Sadr, who has threatened more escalatory steps, but his opponents in the coordination framework see priority in forming a government.
The Iraqi constitution clarifies the mechanism for dissolving parliament: that the parliament is dissolved by an absolute majority of its members with two options; The first is at the request of one third of its members, and the other is at the request of the Prime Minister and with the approval of the President of the Republic.
The roots of the crisis
• The crisis began when Al-Sadr wanted to form a political majority government with the participation of the Sovereignty Alliance led by Al-Halbousi, and the Kurdistan Democratic Party, headed by Massoud Barzani, but the Iranian-backed coordinating framework rejected that.
• After al-Sadr was unable to form that government, he announced the resignation of his deputies from Parliament and demanded the formation of a non-consensual government that would be acceptable.
• But the nomination of the former leader of the Dawa Party, Muhammad Shiaa Al-Sudani, for the position of prime minister angered Al-Sadr, who ordered his followers to take to the streets and storm Parliament.
• The sit-ins in front of Parliament developed, leading to the outbreak of armed clashes between the Al-Salam Brigades of Al-Sadr and the Popular Mobilization, which constituted a milestone in the political crisis.
• After that, Al-Sadr wanted to return to the House of Representatives, by repeating the elections, so the current resorted to filing a lawsuit against the House of Representatives, claiming that it had not fulfilled its constitutional duties.
Commentators and members of the Coordination Framework expressed their satisfaction with the Federal Court’s decision not to dissolve the House of Representatives, which gives a political character to the legal decision, while leaders in the Sadrist movement saw that the decision condemned "blocking third"This is the path of the coordinating framework forces that prevented al-Sadr from forming the government.
Escalation step
The expert on political affairs, Ali Al-Baydar, said that "It is all about the leader of the Sadrist movement, Muqtada al-Sadr. If we decide to proceed with the escalation path, we will be facing new confrontations, and a series of violence, which may not end, which will exacerbate the political conflict, and make the street the field and the faisal in that intractable crisis for several months.".
Al-Baydar added in a statement to the site "Sky News Arabia" that "The coordinating framework seems to be on the path of forming a government, without looking at al-Sadr’s position or seeking his approval, which is an escalating step that may ignite a new crisis in the country.".
He pointed out that"The safe way is for the parliament to dissolve itself, which is an option that will be a win-win situation for all, even the parties who think that they may lose in the early parliamentary elections.".
Drawn to "The necessity for some political parties not to invest in the recent court decision, and to put it in the legal position, to avoid any paths that may create a new conflict, which may not be contained.".
The coordination framework and the forces allied with it assume the resumption of parliament sessions after the fortieth visit to launch consultations to form the new government.
“>
And she was Federal Supreme Court in Iraq (The highest judicial authority), announced Wednesday, that it does not have constitutional authority to dissolve parliament.
She said that on the Iraqi parliament He dissolved himself in case he did not perform his constitutional duties, saying that “the stability of the political process requires everyone to abide by the provisions of the constitution and not to exceed it, and no authority may continue to exceed the constitutional terms indefinitely.”
The dissolution of Parliament is a basic demand of the leader of the Sadrist movement, Muqtada al-Sadr, who has threatened more escalatory steps, but his opponents in the coordination framework see priority in forming a government.
The Iraqi constitution clarifies the mechanism for dissolving parliament: that the parliament is dissolved by an absolute majority of its members with two options; The first is at the request of one third of its members, and the other is at the request of the Prime Minister and with the approval of the President of the Republic.
The roots of the crisis
• The crisis began when Al-Sadr wanted to form a political majority government with the participation of the Sovereignty Alliance led by Al-Halbousi, and the Kurdistan Democratic Party, headed by Massoud Barzani, but the Iranian-backed coordinating framework rejected that.
• After al-Sadr was unable to form that government, he announced the resignation of his deputies from Parliament and demanded the formation of a non-consensual government that would be acceptable.
• But the nomination of the former leader of the Dawa Party, Muhammad Shiaa Al-Sudani, for the position of prime minister angered Al-Sadr, who ordered his followers to take to the streets and storm Parliament.
• The sit-ins in front of Parliament developed, leading to the outbreak of armed clashes between the Al-Salam Brigades of Al-Sadr and the Popular Mobilization, which constituted a milestone in the political crisis.
• After that, Al-Sadr wanted to return to the House of Representatives, by repeating the elections, so the current resorted to filing a lawsuit against the House of Representatives, claiming that it had not fulfilled its constitutional duties.
Commentators and members of the Coordinating Framework Forces expressed their satisfaction with the Federal Court’s decision not to dissolve the House of Representatives, which gives a political character to the legal decision, while leaders in the Sadrist movement saw that the decision condemned the “blocking third”, which is the path of the Coordinating Framework forces that prevented it from Sadr forms the government.
Escalation step
The expert in political affairs, Ali al-Baydar, said that “the whole matter is related to the leader of the Sadrist movement, Muqtada al-Sadr. In that intractable crisis several months ago.
Al-Baydar added in a statement to “Sky News Arabia” that “the coordination framework appears to be proceeding in the path of forming a government, without looking at al-Sadr’s position or seeking his approval, which is an escalating step that may ignite a new crisis in the country.”
He pointed out that “the safe way is for the House of Representatives to dissolve itself, which is an option that will be a win-win situation for all, even the parties who think that they may lose in the early parliamentary elections.”
He pointed out, “The need for some political parties not to invest in the court’s recent decision, and to put it in a legal position, to avoid any paths that may create a new conflict that may not be contained.”
The coordination framework and the forces allied with it assume the resumption of parliament sessions after the fortieth visit to launch consultations to form the new government.