E-MAIL THIS LINK
To: 

Iraq Beginning to Become a Normal Society
Amir Taheri
At a radio phone-in program the other day I was taken to task by some listeners for what they believed is Iraq’s “slide into chaos.” “You campaigned for the liberation of Iraq and now look what has happened!” This was followed by a “what has happened” list of events that included Shiites demonstrating, Kurds asking for autonomy, Sunnis sulking, and various political parties and groups tearing each other apart in the Iraqi media over the shape of the future constitution. The truth, however, is that, far from sliding into chaos or heading toward civil war, Iraq is beginning to become a normal society. And all normal societies face uncertainties just as do all normal human beings.
Just look at the Democratic primaries!
One should welcome the gradual emergence of a normal political life in Iraq after nearly half a century of brutal despotism, including 35 years of exceptionally murderous Baathist rule. The central aim of the war in Iraq, at least as far as I am concerned, was to create conditions in which Shiites can demonstrate without being machine-gunned in the streets of Baghdad and Basra, while the Kurds are able to call for autonomy without being gassed by the thousands as they were in Halabja under Saddam.
Somehow Michael Moore and Polly Toynbee both miseed that.
It is good that Grand Ayatollah Ali-Muhammad Sistani can issue fatwas, something he could not have done under Saddam Hussein. It is even better that those who disagree with the grand ayatollah could say so without being murdered by zealots.
Why it’s almost ... western!
And why shouldn’t the Sunnis sulk if they feel that they may not get a fair deal in the new Iraq? And what is wrong with Kurds telling the world that they are a distinct people with their own languages, culture and even religious faiths, and must, therefore, be allowed to develop within the parameters of their identity? If anything, the Iraqi political fight is taking place with an unusual degree of courtesy in which the Marques of Queensbury’ rule applies, which is not the case even in some mature democracies. The new Iraq, as it is emerging, will be full of uncertainties. But that is precisely why the liberation war was justified. Under Saddam the Iraqis faced only the certainty of concentration camps and mass graves.
And shredding machines.
The Iraqis are now free to debate all aspects of their individual and national life. The fact that different, often conflicting views are now expressed without fear should be seen as a positive achievement of the liberation. Democracy includes the freedom to demonstrate, especially against those in charge, and to “tear each other apart” in the media and town-hall political debates. It also includes the difficulty of reaching a consensus on major issues. Those who follow Iraqi politics would know that Iraq today is the only Arab country where all shades of opinion are now free to express themselves and to compete for influence and power in a free market of ideas.
That’s the neo-con argument in a nutshell.
Even the Baathists, whose party was formally banned after the liberation, are beginning to group in a number of local clubs.

What are the key issues of political debate in Iraq today? Here are some:
• The Arab Sunnis want Iraq described as “part of the Arab nation.” This is opposed by the Kurds who say the constitution must describe Iraq as a “binational: Arab and Kurdish” state. The Shiites, some 60 percent of the population, reject both the Arab and the “binational” formulae. Instead, they wish to emphasize the concept of Iraqitude (Uruka).

• The Kurds want Iraq to become a federal state so that they can enjoy autonomy in their provinces. This is opposed by Arab Sunnis and Shiites.

• Some parties, both Sunni and Shiite, want Islam to be acknowledged as the religion of the state in the new constitution.

• Some parties want Iraq to withdraw from OPEC, the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and, instead, seek some form of association with the European Union.
Think about this guys, don’t replace one failed system with another.
• Several parties and personalities want a clause for peace and cooperation with all nations to be included in the constitution. They see this as a step toward an eventual recognition of Israel.

• There are deep divisions on economic philosophy.

• There are divisions on the electoral system. The Kurds and Sunni Arabs want proportional representations with measures that could prevent Shiites from using simple majority rules to impose their will. The Shiites want a first past-the-post system that could give them up to 70 percent of the seats in any future Parliament.
Most of these issues have haunted Iraq since it was carved out of the Ottoman Empire and formed into a nation-state some seven decades ago. Successive Iraqi despots tried to keep a lid on these issues either by denying their existence or by stifling debate. This is what most Arab regimes, which share many of Iraq’s problems, have done for decades and continue to do today. If Iraq is to be transformed into a model for all Arabs it should take a different path right from the start.

The US-led coalition that now controls Iraq could well revert to that despotic tradition by imposing an artificial consensus. The fact that the coalition has chosen not to do is to its credit. Real consensus is bound to be harder to achieve and Iraq is certain to experience a lively political debate, including mass demonstrations and a war of leaflets, until a compromise is reached on how to form a provisional government and how to handle the task of writing a new constitution. Most Iraqi political figures, acting out of habit, constantly turn to the coalition authorities with the demand that their own view be adopted and imposed by fiat. The coalition should resist the temptation to dictate terms. It should also refrain from making any partial alliances. Today, the entire Iraqi nation, in all its many different components, could be regarded, at least potentially, as a friend of the US and its allies. The US-led coalition should accept that the road ahead will be bumpy. But that is not necessarily bad news. For democracy is nothing but a journey on constantly bumpy roads.
This ought to be printed/broadcast over the Voice of America to the entire Arab region.
Posted by: Steve White 2004-01-30
http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=25279