Does the Western Like Democracy Suit the Middle East? [Finale]
Ismail Imadudeen
June 10, 2008
It was a period of high spirits and dreams; patriotic songs touching the very bottom of the hearts, and the very pride of every Arab man. Revolutionary councils that command everywhere; in Cairo, Damascus, Baghdad and Algeria. Buzzing movement of tractors and machinery, and deafening enchants of excited crowds in front of just one man, who got it all. Itīs the image of the leader in the Middle East in the 1950s, 1960s and the 1970s, which was portrayed first by Nasser, and from which some other rulers in the Middle East tried to emulate.
Saddam Hussein of Iraq was an example of such rulers who tried to copy Nasserīs model of leadership. Indeed, after
Nasserīs death, Saddam was so ambitious to replace his popularity in the Arab street. An influential member of the revolutionary Ba'ath Party, which adopted secular pan-Arabism, economic modernization, and Arab socialism, Saddam played a key role in the 1968 coup that brought the party to a 'very' long-term power. In his capacity as a vice president, under the increasigly feeble General Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, Saddam strongly controlled the inflaming conflict between the government and the army—at a time when many other groups and political parties were considered capable of toppling the government—by creating repressive security forces. In the early 1970s, Saddam forefronted Iraq's expropriation of the Western-owned Iraq Petroleum Company, which had long held a monopoly on the country's oil. Through the 1970s, Saddam strengthened his authority over the apparatuses of government as Iraq's economy grew at a rapid pace.
Saddam played a key role in every aspect of development in Iraq in his capacity as a Vice President from 1968 to 1979; in every field, let it be education, agriculture, industry, culture, the role of women in the society, etc. But Iraq wasnīt an easy country to rule; the Kurdish were opponent to the Ba`ath Partyīs agenda of pan-Arabism and Arab-nationalism, as they werenīt Arab. The Shiit, on the other hand, didnīt support the Ba`ath Partyīs secular approach in government. The Kurdish rebels continued to have some kind of communication with Israel, meanwhile, the Shiit continued to have contacts with the Iranians, who became then under theocratic government since 1979. Saddam had no choice but to use the īcarrot and stickī approach.
The major instruments for accomplishing this control were the paramilitary and police organizations. As the Ba'ath Party's paramilitary, the People's Army was considered as a counterweight against any likely coup attempts by the regular armed forces. In addition to the People's Army, the Department of General Intelligence was the most sophisticated and terrifying arm of the state security system, feared for its use of torture and assassination. Iraq then was like a state of terror; no one could trust the other, as anyone could be just a spy to the government.
Was Saddam then a good father or a bad father? Infact the best people who can answer this question will be the Iraqi people themselves, but for me as an Arab, and a human being, I can state that Saddam had committed a terrible mistake when he invaded Kuwait in August 2nd 1990. Saddam invaded Kuwait, a small, but influential state in the Arab world, at a time when he was very close to be an Arab hero, after his seemingly victory over the Iranians in 1988. It was the turning point in the Iraqi and Arab recent history. Iraq was defeated bitterly, but, effectively, the whole Arab world was hurt and broken. Iraq which has been an example of prosperity became so weak and poor; hungry people, racial and ethnic conflicts, mass killing, and terrifying internal security system.
Days and years passed by and we can see Iraq now; a country without definite identity or future. Was it Saddam alone responsible, or there could be some other parties to blame? No matter whom to blame; what I am sure of is that the image of the leader in the Middle East has been shaken from the very roots, and about to be eliminated fully. But the problem is that what could be the alternative to the Middle Eastern people? Does the Western like democracy suit the people here? My opinion is no, but, then what to do?
I think that there should be some kind of complete transformation in this region; a process that will not harm or affect culture or beliefs, but the one that can reform new brains that believe in the possibility of peaceful power sharing. The region needs people who can understand that power could be shared through peaceful and political means not through civil disturbances or coups. The rulers here should be assured immunity when they leave office, and they sould be considered as ex-rulers, not as enemies or rotten regimes. The process should start small, say with education and extensive scholarships in the West or in Western affiliated institutes in the Middle East. Then the civil societies must be strengthened to serve people better. Itīs better to offer those societies some training that could teach them how to be useful and productive without just doing meaningless strikes, shouts or gatherings.
There are a lot of things that the West can do other than helping the beneficiaries who play on the alleged issues of human rights abuses and religious discrimination in the Middle East, and other than those boring periodical reports about human rights in a country or another in the region. I call upon the West to invest heavily in Education, vocational training, economic assistance and joint ventures. Help small industries and help to eradicate unemployment and poverty; the major causes of depression and inferiority complex.
A peaceful, prosperous and democratic Middle East would mean a better world, so why donīt we try and do it right?
Saddam Hussein of Iraq was an example of such rulers who tried to copy Nasserīs model of leadership. Indeed, after
Nasserīs death, Saddam was so ambitious to replace his popularity in the Arab street. An influential member of the revolutionary Ba'ath Party, which adopted secular pan-Arabism, economic modernization, and Arab socialism, Saddam played a key role in the 1968 coup that brought the party to a 'very' long-term power. In his capacity as a vice president, under the increasigly feeble General Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, Saddam strongly controlled the inflaming conflict between the government and the army—at a time when many other groups and political parties were considered capable of toppling the government—by creating repressive security forces. In the early 1970s, Saddam forefronted Iraq's expropriation of the Western-owned Iraq Petroleum Company, which had long held a monopoly on the country's oil. Through the 1970s, Saddam strengthened his authority over the apparatuses of government as Iraq's economy grew at a rapid pace.
Saddam played a key role in every aspect of development in Iraq in his capacity as a Vice President from 1968 to 1979; in every field, let it be education, agriculture, industry, culture, the role of women in the society, etc. But Iraq wasnīt an easy country to rule; the Kurdish were opponent to the Ba`ath Partyīs agenda of pan-Arabism and Arab-nationalism, as they werenīt Arab. The Shiit, on the other hand, didnīt support the Ba`ath Partyīs secular approach in government. The Kurdish rebels continued to have some kind of communication with Israel, meanwhile, the Shiit continued to have contacts with the Iranians, who became then under theocratic government since 1979. Saddam had no choice but to use the īcarrot and stickī approach.
The major instruments for accomplishing this control were the paramilitary and police organizations. As the Ba'ath Party's paramilitary, the People's Army was considered as a counterweight against any likely coup attempts by the regular armed forces. In addition to the People's Army, the Department of General Intelligence was the most sophisticated and terrifying arm of the state security system, feared for its use of torture and assassination. Iraq then was like a state of terror; no one could trust the other, as anyone could be just a spy to the government.
Was Saddam then a good father or a bad father? Infact the best people who can answer this question will be the Iraqi people themselves, but for me as an Arab, and a human being, I can state that Saddam had committed a terrible mistake when he invaded Kuwait in August 2nd 1990. Saddam invaded Kuwait, a small, but influential state in the Arab world, at a time when he was very close to be an Arab hero, after his seemingly victory over the Iranians in 1988. It was the turning point in the Iraqi and Arab recent history. Iraq was defeated bitterly, but, effectively, the whole Arab world was hurt and broken. Iraq which has been an example of prosperity became so weak and poor; hungry people, racial and ethnic conflicts, mass killing, and terrifying internal security system.
Days and years passed by and we can see Iraq now; a country without definite identity or future. Was it Saddam alone responsible, or there could be some other parties to blame? No matter whom to blame; what I am sure of is that the image of the leader in the Middle East has been shaken from the very roots, and about to be eliminated fully. But the problem is that what could be the alternative to the Middle Eastern people? Does the Western like democracy suit the people here? My opinion is no, but, then what to do?
I think that there should be some kind of complete transformation in this region; a process that will not harm or affect culture or beliefs, but the one that can reform new brains that believe in the possibility of peaceful power sharing. The region needs people who can understand that power could be shared through peaceful and political means not through civil disturbances or coups. The rulers here should be assured immunity when they leave office, and they sould be considered as ex-rulers, not as enemies or rotten regimes. The process should start small, say with education and extensive scholarships in the West or in Western affiliated institutes in the Middle East. Then the civil societies must be strengthened to serve people better. Itīs better to offer those societies some training that could teach them how to be useful and productive without just doing meaningless strikes, shouts or gatherings.
There are a lot of things that the West can do other than helping the beneficiaries who play on the alleged issues of human rights abuses and religious discrimination in the Middle East, and other than those boring periodical reports about human rights in a country or another in the region. I call upon the West to invest heavily in Education, vocational training, economic assistance and joint ventures. Help small industries and help to eradicate unemployment and poverty; the major causes of depression and inferiority complex.
A peaceful, prosperous and democratic Middle East would mean a better world, so why donīt we try and do it right?
Print
Email
