One topic dominates conversation between four men huddled around a table in a Baghdad coffee shop playing cards. It is the same at a hairdressers nearby, and inside many of the city’s dilapidated taxi cabs.

All across Iraq, a heated debate in Parliament over whether or not to approve a security deal with the United States has people tuning into radio stations or watching television to witness often noisy exchanges between their MPs.

For many, this is a new experience of democracy because there were no public airings of decision-making in Saddam Hussein’s time and, since his downfall, few Iraqis have shown an interest in the fledgling politicians who replaced him.

Others simply watched snippets of the political pantomime because they found it entertaining to see grown men and women pounding tables in anger, shouting each other down and, at one point, almost coming to blows.

The country must wait until tomorrow to find out which way the 275-member Parliament will vote on the agreement after concluding their debate on Saturday. If passed, the pact will enable US forces to remain in Iraq until the end of 2011.

Shuffling a deck of cards, Hussein Abid Hussein was happy to see albeit edited coverage of the discussion aired on television.

“It is a healthy sign,” the 48-year-old told The Times.

“Before the invasion we were not able to see any fights in Parliament because there was only one opinion that mattered,” he said, referring to Saddam.

Two of his card-playing friends, day-labourers who have been meeting at this coffee shop in central Baghdad for the past 20 years, agreed.

“This is the first time I’ve followed a parliamentary debate,” said Mothar Jasheed Khalaf, 57. “However, I don’t really understand the content of the security pact and what it will mean for me.”

Habib Adel, 68, is the only one of the four companions who is not bothered about the status of forces agreement between Baghdad and Washington, which also sets out a timetable for US troops to withdraw from Iraqi towns and cities by mid 2009.

“I did not watch the debate. I do not care. I think to be silent is best,” he said.

MPs have until Wednesday to make up their mind about which way they will vote on the pact, which was passed by the Cabinet last Sunday.

A simple majority is all that is required, but Nouri al-Maliki, the Prime Minister, will be looking for a clear win by the Yes camp to give the deal legitimacy in the face of strong opposition from a number of smaller political factions, including the 30 MPs loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr, the anti-American Shia cleric.

Politicians appeared pleased that the public was able to watch them work, but regretted that an exchange on the first day, Wednesday, turned ugly when Sadr MPs scuffled with the security guards of Hoshyar Zebari, Iraq's Foreign Minister.

“It went a bit too far, but this is not a strange phenomenon for parliaments,” said Qasim Dawood, a senior Shia Muslim MP and member of the ruling United Iraqi Alliance, which supports the agreement.

Ala Talabani, a Kurdish MP who also is in favour of the pact, said it was good for the public to feel part of the political process by watching it unfold.

“This is an important change in the new Iraq. It is no longer the case that such a crucial issue is decided by a limited group of people,” she told The Times.

Bahaa al-Araji, a senior Sadr MP who is against the agreement and opposed to Mr Maliki’s ruling coalition, said letting people watch politicians debate was part of Iraq’s nascent democracy. “However, we still need a democratic Government.”

At a hairdressers in Baghdad, women clientele said they were glad to have the freedom to watch political exchanges on television, but would prefer to have Saddam back and no democracy if it meant their lives would be secure again.

Ibti Sam al-Hafaji, an assistant hairdresser and beautician dressed in a white overall, plans to switch a small television set in the salon on to watch the Parliamentary vote on Wednesday.

“I am excited. All of us are waiting for the result,” she said.

Asked what she thought about her new ability to experience the political process compared with before the 2003 invasion, however, the 44-year-old said: “Now we have no security and some democracy. I prefer the situation before.”

Times Recommends

• UN may halt 400-year-old 'freedom of the seas'
• Where the Rosetta belongs can’t be set in stone
• Gas deal on hold, but Ukraine may pay in the end