Iraq’s Prime Minister Mustafa Al Kadhimi has survived an early Sunday morning assassination attempt as a drone attack on his residence in the Green Zone left several of his security guards injured.

With a new government yet to be formed in Baghdad after last month’s elections, where the governing pro-Iran Fatah Alliance had lost its position of strength and was reduced to 15 seats in the 329-member national parliament from its previous 48, and Iraq’s anti-Iran, anti-US Shia cleric Moqtadar Al-Sadr’s Seroun movement won 70 seats.

Hard bargaining is on among political parties to form a coalition government. Meanwhile, Kadhimi, an independent, remains the head of the caretaker government. Meanwhile, clashes are on in Baghdad with the pro-Iran protesters laying siege to the high security Green Zone.

An Iraqi political analyst has interpreted the protests as a way of Fatah Alliance and others strengthening their bargaining position. Clearly, no party has the requisite numbers to form a government on its own, and factions with nothing in common in terms of political programmes or ideology, will be vying with each other to be part of the coalition.

The protesters are describing the election results as a “fraud”. In this situation, the attack on Kadhimi, who would be leaving office sooner than later, seems futile and meaningless.

A stable democracy requires that all parties accept the election verdict with a sense of responsibility, even if it goes against any of them. It is inevitable that there will be winners and losers. Losers cannot say that they will not accept the election verdict, and the winners cannot behave as though they can do whatever they want. The smooth transfer of power is essential. Whether it is Libya, Sudan, Lebanon or Iraq, the results of the election should be respected.

So factional leaders and the powerful groups they lead owe an obligation to the democratic process of elections. An election result cannot be settled through street clashes, violence, and drone attacks.

Post-Saddam Hussein Iraq is still in the throes of political transition, wracked by sectarian violence as well as attacks by external extremist groups like the Daesh.

Iraq has won its war against Daesh. It seems that it is the internal factionalism that threatens its stability. Like in Lebanon, in Iraq too external powers like Iran and the United States will need to stay away and allow Iraqis to find their own solutions.

Iraqi President Barham Salih condemning the attack on the prime minister’s residence rightly said, “We cannot accept that Iraq will be dragged into chaos and a coup against its constitutional system.”

Moqtada Al-Sadr sees this as a conspiracy of non-state actors. He said the terrorist attack is aimed to “return Iraq to a state of chaos to be controlled by non-state forces.” This is indeed the crux of the problem. The need of the hour in Iraq is defend the state, the constitutional system and the democratic process that lends legitimacy to the state and the constitution.

There will be sharp differences among the different political leaders and groups, but the differences are to be articulated in a democratic way inside the elected parliament.

The losers must wait for the next election to persuade people to vote them in, and the winners must beware that an electoral victory is a time-bound mandate, and it is not a license to wield power without restraint and to override the opposition. Iraq’s leaders must recognise that a divided country is an invitation to the outsider powers to fish in troubled waters.

There is then a compelling need to disband all the armed militias on all sides.