Iraq: A Subverted Democracy and a Worthless Constitution
Rauf Naqishbendi
July 22, 2007
Experimental trials and routine tactics are usually practiced in absence of a visionary plan, and such has been the case in this post-Saddam era. The current disparate situation in Iraq is a direct result of mistaken US policies. Consider Al-Hakem, a religious Shiite figure whose safe refuge was granted by Iranian Ayatollah when Saddam was in power. This man was indoctrinated by Iranian Mullahs, who sponsored him to recruit, arm and train loyalist followers. Iran invested in him so that at some future date they could dispatch him back to Iraq for their own agendas. Suffice it to say that securing passage for Al-Hakem and thousands of his armed men into Iraq was the US’s paramount sin.
When the Iraqi national election approached, Al-Hakem was able to mobilize and organize under his wing scattered Shiite political groups into what he called the United Iraqi Alliances. The US realized his intent and, determined to thwart his advance; they employed their own candidate, Ayad Alawi, the former prime minister. The Saudis and Kuwaitis backed up Alawi’s party through the media and with hundreds of millions of dollars. To the dismay of the United States, however, Alawi’s party came in a distant second as Al-Hakem’s alliance won by a landslide.
Now the elections are concluded: a pro-Ayatollah party, Al-Hakem and his alliance are the dominant power in Iraq. This alliance will secure the majority seats in Iraq’s parliament, the head of the state, and majority of the cabinet. How this Shiite dominance will evolve and where it will take Iraq is the purpose of this inquiry.
In any country with a homogenous population, democracy can be at its best if every elected member of the legislative and executive body strives to advance the interests of their republic over the interests of their own constituencies. This is a norm when the fabrics of the nation have a common agenda. But consider the case in Iraq, where each thread of the republic has its own priorities - the fabric consists more of anomalies than that of commonalities. In this scenario when loyalty to the common wealth is substituted for loyalty to the constituencies, it is not difficult to predict that heated debates will become confrontations, ambition will become greed, power-sharing will become a power struggle, moderation will easily devolve into extremism, and the interest of the nation as a whole will be overrun by the vote of the majority against a resentful minority. Thus, the yoke of democracy is shaken to its foundations.
Though the Iraqi people did not demand it, the US imposed a national election for the purpose of electing the members of the assembly who would then draft a constitution for the Iraqi people. But let us look at how democracy developed in the US originally. America’s founding fathers framed one of the most glorious constitutions in history. But after the constitution was framed, slavery was still the norm in America, and even some of the founding fathers were slave owners. In addition, the only people who could vote in America were white landlords. Not until 1913 could women vote in America. Even after Abraham Lincoln emancipated the slaves, blacks were still treated like second class citizens and continued to endure segregation until the rise of civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1960s. Thus the installation of a constitution has been shown to be potentially generations away from genuine implementation.
In civilized nations, a constitution is the legal vehicle for the protection of individual rights and property, and serves to outline the power of the executive and legislative branches of government. However, though a constitution can be an expression of a decent conscience written by the greatest minds alive, it still is powerless to appeal to justice and liberty unless these ideals are part of the collective will of a country’s citizens and are evident in their interactions with each other.
This is the dilemma in Iraq. The Shiites ignore the rest of the Iraqi fabric in order to advance their own agendas and please their Iranian Ayatollah counterparts. Regardless of how diligently they frame the Iraqi constitution, it will not be worth the paper it’s drafted on if the Shiites decide to act in accordance with their own hearts rather than in accordance with their constitution. For proof, just look at Iran. As they draft the constitution, they sway every article in their interest in order to disenfranchise the Kurds, which in turn provides the impetus for the Kurds to strive for their own statehood.
The Kurds rightly fear Arab power in Iraq. In fact, they despise Iraq. Every thought of Iraq is a painful reminder of past sufferings and evokes strong fear of more suffering to come. Iraq as a merged nation will not survive the test of time, as Peter W. Galbraith has articulated in his commentary to the New York Times: "As the United States learned in Yugoslavia, it is hard in a democracy to hold people in a country they hate."
When the Iraqi national election approached, Al-Hakem was able to mobilize and organize under his wing scattered Shiite political groups into what he called the United Iraqi Alliances. The US realized his intent and, determined to thwart his advance; they employed their own candidate, Ayad Alawi, the former prime minister. The Saudis and Kuwaitis backed up Alawi’s party through the media and with hundreds of millions of dollars. To the dismay of the United States, however, Alawi’s party came in a distant second as Al-Hakem’s alliance won by a landslide.
Now the elections are concluded: a pro-Ayatollah party, Al-Hakem and his alliance are the dominant power in Iraq. This alliance will secure the majority seats in Iraq’s parliament, the head of the state, and majority of the cabinet. How this Shiite dominance will evolve and where it will take Iraq is the purpose of this inquiry.
In any country with a homogenous population, democracy can be at its best if every elected member of the legislative and executive body strives to advance the interests of their republic over the interests of their own constituencies. This is a norm when the fabrics of the nation have a common agenda. But consider the case in Iraq, where each thread of the republic has its own priorities - the fabric consists more of anomalies than that of commonalities. In this scenario when loyalty to the common wealth is substituted for loyalty to the constituencies, it is not difficult to predict that heated debates will become confrontations, ambition will become greed, power-sharing will become a power struggle, moderation will easily devolve into extremism, and the interest of the nation as a whole will be overrun by the vote of the majority against a resentful minority. Thus, the yoke of democracy is shaken to its foundations.
Though the Iraqi people did not demand it, the US imposed a national election for the purpose of electing the members of the assembly who would then draft a constitution for the Iraqi people. But let us look at how democracy developed in the US originally. America’s founding fathers framed one of the most glorious constitutions in history. But after the constitution was framed, slavery was still the norm in America, and even some of the founding fathers were slave owners. In addition, the only people who could vote in America were white landlords. Not until 1913 could women vote in America. Even after Abraham Lincoln emancipated the slaves, blacks were still treated like second class citizens and continued to endure segregation until the rise of civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1960s. Thus the installation of a constitution has been shown to be potentially generations away from genuine implementation.
In civilized nations, a constitution is the legal vehicle for the protection of individual rights and property, and serves to outline the power of the executive and legislative branches of government. However, though a constitution can be an expression of a decent conscience written by the greatest minds alive, it still is powerless to appeal to justice and liberty unless these ideals are part of the collective will of a country’s citizens and are evident in their interactions with each other.
This is the dilemma in Iraq. The Shiites ignore the rest of the Iraqi fabric in order to advance their own agendas and please their Iranian Ayatollah counterparts. Regardless of how diligently they frame the Iraqi constitution, it will not be worth the paper it’s drafted on if the Shiites decide to act in accordance with their own hearts rather than in accordance with their constitution. For proof, just look at Iran. As they draft the constitution, they sway every article in their interest in order to disenfranchise the Kurds, which in turn provides the impetus for the Kurds to strive for their own statehood.
The Kurds rightly fear Arab power in Iraq. In fact, they despise Iraq. Every thought of Iraq is a painful reminder of past sufferings and evokes strong fear of more suffering to come. Iraq as a merged nation will not survive the test of time, as Peter W. Galbraith has articulated in his commentary to the New York Times: "As the United States learned in Yugoslavia, it is hard in a democracy to hold people in a country they hate."
Print
Email
