Zaidi was formally tasked on Monday with forming a cabinet within 30 days, after Iraq’s dominant parliamentary bloc abandoned former prime minister Nouri Al-Maliki following reported U.S. opposition to his return.Five months after parliamentary elections, Iraq remains without a new administration as rival factions continue to compete over leadership positions and ministerial control in a system shaped by sectarian and political power-sharing.

The Coordination Framework, the largest bloc in parliament and an alliance of Shiite factions with varying ties to Iran, had initially backed Maliki, a two-time former premier known for his close relations with Tehran.His candidacy, however, collapsed after what officials described as strong pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump, who reportedly issued an ultimatum opposing Maliki’s return to office.

The bloc has since shifted support to Zaidi and publicly thanked Maliki for stepping aside.Iraq’s state-run INA news agency reported that the Coordination Framework would meet Zaidi on Tuesday to begin talks over cabinet formation and the allocation of ministerial portfolios.Zaidi said he intended to work “with all political forces,” according to INA.

At 40, Zaidi is viewed as a compromise candidate with limited political baggage. He is a businessman, owner of a television channel and a former head of an Iraqi bank that had been barred from conducting U.S. dollar transactions under American anti-money laundering restrictions.He has never previously held a government post.

If he succeeds in forming a government, Zaidi will replace Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani, whose hopes of securing a second term weakened after he failed to prevent Iran-backed armed groups from targeting U.S. interests during the recent Middle East war.

A political source told AFP that the Coordination Framework endorsed Zaidi only after consulting U.S. representatives to gauge Washington’s acceptance.Victoria J. Taylor, director of the Iraq Initiative at the Atlantic Council and a former U.S. deputy assistant secretary for Iraq, said the bloc was unlikely to have advanced Zaidi’s nomination without some confidence that the United States would not object.

“The framework would not have nominated him without some sense that the U.S. would accept his nomination,” she wrote on X.She added that Trump’s public rejection of Maliki had been politically damaging and the alliance was keen to avoid another confrontation with Washington.

Zaidi’s nomination also came 10 days after a senior Iranian commander visited Iraq and held meetings with political leaders, underlining Baghdad’s continued balancing act between Tehran and Washington more than two decades after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

Luxon dismissed suggestions of dissent within his party, telling a press conference he remained confident of continued backing from lawmakers. “I talk to my caucus all the time. I’m very confident I have the full support of my caucus,” he said, adding that his government would be re-elected if a vote were held immediately.

The comments follow a report by the New Zealand Herald that some National Party members could move against Luxon when parliament reconvenes, although the report indicated that any initial effort was unlikely to take the form of a formal leadership challenge or confidence vote.

The developments come amid weakening polling numbers for the ruling coalition. Several recent surveys have shown the National Party struggling to secure more than 30% support, raising concerns about its ability to retain power in the next general election scheduled for November 7.Luxon’s personal approval ratings have also come under pressure.

A March RNZ-Reid Research poll showed opposition leader Chris Hipkins leading preferred prime minister rankings with 20.7% support, compared with 17.3% for Luxon.

The polling trends underscore growing political headwinds for the government as it approaches the election cycle, with voter sentiment indicating a tightening contest between the incumbent coalition and the opposition bloc.

All 495 lawmakers present endorsed his nomination, according to parliament, formalizing a dual leadership structure that departs from Vietnam’s long-standing system of collective governance.

Lam, who secured a second term earlier this year as head of the Communist Party of Vietnam, now holds both the top party and state positions for the next five years. Analysts say the concentration of authority could streamline policymaking but also raises concerns about increased centralization of power.

In a televised address after the vote, Lam pledged to pursue a new growth strategy driven by science, technology, innovation and digital transformation, while emphasizing stability, self-reliance in defense and improvements in living standards.

The leadership shift marks a structural change in Vietnam’s political system, bringing it closer to models seen in other one-party states where power is concentrated in a single figure.

Observers say this could accelerate economic decision-making in the fast-growing Southeast Asian economy.Lam, 68, previously served as minister of public security and has promoted reforms aimed at boosting competitiveness and reducing reliance on low-cost manufacturing.

His policies have drawn both praise from investors and concerns over potential risks such as market distortions, favouritism and asset bubbles.Vietnam’s foreign policy is expected to remain broadly unchanged, with Lam continuing a balancing approach between major powers while expanding global partnerships.

The National Assembly is expected to appoint a new prime minister later on Tuesday to replace Pham Minh Chinh.

Time and again, emotional appeals for street protests have been presented as the only recourse—akin to a one-size-fits-all remedy.

Last week, India’s Parliament passed the Waqf Amendment Bill, a piece of legislation aimed at reforming the management of Islamic charitable endowments known as Waqf properties. This move has sparked significant unease among Muslim organizations, civil society groups, and opposition political parties in the country. Despite appeals to India’s President, Droupadi Murmu, to withhold her approval, the bill has now been enacted into law.

Prominent political figures, including Muslim parliamentarians such as Asaduddin Owaisi of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehad Muslimeen, Mohammed Jawed of the Indian National Congress, and Amanatullah Khan, a Delhi legislator and chairman of the local Waqf Board from the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), have filed legal challenges in India’s Supreme Court, questioning the bill’s alignment with the nation’s constitution.

In contrast, Sanjay Raut, a member of parliament from Shiv Sena (UBT)—a regional political party—has indicated his party’s decision not to oppose the legislation, suggesting a divergence of views even among the government’s critics.

India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led central government defends the bill, asserting it is in the nation’s best interest. Key officials, including Kiren Rijiju, the Minister of Minority Affairs, and Amit Shah, the Minister of Home Affairs, have repeatedly emphasized that the law does not infringe on Muslim rights. Instead, they argue it seeks to improve the efficiency of Waqf Boards—bodies responsible for overseeing these endowments. The government has dismissed opposition claims that the bill undermines constitutional protections as baseless.

Nevertheless, a coalition of Muslim organizations, individuals, and opposition parties continues to argue that the legislation threatens the sanctity of mosques and graveyards managed under Waqf. Labeling it unconstitutional, these groups are mobilizing for nationwide protests, including large-scale sit-ins and street demonstrations, to demand the law’s repeal.

The Historical Context of Waqf Management

Before jumping to support calls for protests, it’s worth exploring the historical management of Waqf properties—endowments established under Islamic law for charitable purposes—since India’s independence in 1947. This moment of controversy offers a chance to reflect on how these assets, meant to serve religious and social welfare, have been handled over decades.

A 2011 report by the Sachar Committee, a government-appointed panel studying the socio-economic conditions of Indian Muslims, alongside data from the Central Waqf Council, revealed that over 50% of Waqf land in India is either encroached upon or tangled in legal disputes—a striking indicator of systemic mismanagement across regions and political regimes.

In Telangana, a southern Indian state never governed by the BJP, approximately 75% of Waqf land is reportedly encroached upon, with the figure rising to 82% in its capital, Hyderabad. This underscores that the problem transcends any single political party or central policy. These statistics challenge the narrative that the current uproar is solely a result of the national government’s actions and prompt scrutiny of the role local Waqf Boards and regional leaders played in allowing such widespread losses to occur.

The Gap Between Rhetoric and Results

For decades, the administration of Waqf properties—intended to fund education, healthcare, and welfare initiatives—has failed to deliver on its charitable promise. Despite controlling vast assets, the benefits to India’s Muslim community remain limited. This raises pressing questions about who has truly profited from Waqf properties since India’s independence, who bears responsibility for the encroachments, mismanagement, and misuse of these lands, and how many schools, hospitals, or welfare centers have been established using Waqf resources.

Furthermore, what actions were taken against those who exploited these endowments, and in what measurable ways has Waqf contributed to the economic advancement of Muslims? Calls for accountability and reform in Waqf management should have surfaced long ago. Instead, the same organizations now rallying for protests—many of which oversaw this decline—are accused of stirring emotions for political leverage.

Critics argue these self-proclaimed “guardians” of the Muslim community have historically mismanaged Waqf resources, often prioritizing personal or political gain over communal welfare.

The Myth of Wake-Up Calls

Much has been said about “wake-up calls” to galvanize India’s Muslim community. Yet, the reality suggests that community leaders and Waqf custodians were never dormant—they were simply focused elsewhere.

Many Waqf properties have been illegally occupied, with rents kept artificially low, allowing beneficiaries to exploit them for decades without oversight or adjustment. This pattern of neglect raises doubts about the sincerity of those now decrying the new law.

The Pattern of Response to Legislation

A recurring trend emerges in how certain groups react to laws perceived to affect Muslim interests in India. When the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC) were introduced—policies aimed at streamlining citizenship processes—similar fears were ignited, with claims that Muslims would be stripped of citizenship. Years after the CAA’s implementation, no widespread evidence of such disenfranchisement has emerged.

This history prompts questions about the opposition to the Waqf Amendment Bill: Are objections rooted in genuine threats to religious rights, or do they reflect an automatic resistance that ultimately serves political agendas rather than community well-being?

The Human Cost of Protest Without Protection

Time and again, emotional appeals for street protests have been presented as the only recourse—akin to a one-size-fits-all remedy.

During the CAA-NRC protests, fears of mass citizenship loss fueled widespread unrest. Yet, as Minister Kiren Rijiju noted during the Waqf bill debates, no Muslims have lost citizenship under CAA. Still, the fallout from such movements lingers: young Muslims arrested during protests against CAA, NRC, and earlier laws like the Triple Talaq ban often remain in jail, lacking legal or financial support from the groups that spurred them into action.

In Muzaffarnagar, a city in northern India, 24 Muslim youths faced legal notices simply for wearing black armbands as a symbolic dissent—not even a full protest—each required to post a ₹2 lakh (approximately $2,400 USD) bond. In Ahmedabad, a western Indian city, around 40 people were detained during demonstrations.

These cases highlight the risks to ordinary citizens when protests lack strategic planning, legal backing, or institutional support.

Before heeding new calls to protest, communities deserve to know whether organizers have secured proper permissions from authorities, are prepared to provide legal aid to those arrested, have a legal team in place, will accept responsibility for the outcomes, and will support the families of detainees financially and emotionally.

The Path Forward: Reform and Accountability

The current Waqf management system demands overhaul. Transparency, accountability, and effectiveness must take precedence over political maneuvering. Rather than blanket opposition, India’s Muslim community could benefit from demanding targeted amendments to problematic clauses in the bill instead of outright rejection, proposing governance models that balance religious autonomy with accountability, establishing independent oversight to track how Waqf resources serve the community, creating forums for community input into Waqf decisions, and developing long-term plans to leverage Waqf assets for education, healthcare, and economic growth.

From Reaction to Responsible Engagement

India’s Muslim community faces a pivotal choice. The current approach lacks strategy, unified leadership, negotiation, or internal reform—just a repetitive cycle of politicization until issues reach the courts. Continuing this pattern of protest and division is an option, but so is redirecting energy toward ensuring Waqf properties fulfill their charitable mission. The community must resist further manipulation.

For decades, Waqf assets have been plundered while leaders stood by. Now, as the government pushes for accountability, some of these same figures are accused of misleading the public once more.

True leadership goes beyond rallying crowds—it requires vision, strategy, and responsibility. By advocating for reforms that bring transparency and efficiency to Waqf management, the community can ensure these resources uplift its most vulnerable members and build enduring institutions for future generations.

The challenge is not merely whether to oppose a law, but how to ensure the sacred trust of Waqf serves its intended purpose: benefiting the community it was created to support.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.