[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
maybe they should learn from the USA and adopt the crazy electorate system .. so the underpopulated white majority states get more say than the overpopulated but ethnically diverse states.
[/QUOTE]
I never heard of anyone refer to California and New York as underpopulated white majority states.
I agree with this:
Iraq needs a constitutional monarchy](http://www.iht.com/articles/95400.htm)
When I first heard the rumbling of American tanks near my house in Baghdad, in whose cellar I was taking refuge with my family, the first thing that came to my mind was a wish that these tanks were full of Iraqis executing a coup d’état against Saddam Hussein.
Unfortunately the commanders of the Iraqi army have betrayed the Iraqi people by failing for 35 years to protect them from the tyranny of Saddam, who turned Iraq from a national to a personal state. There is no greater curse for the human soul than the loss of personal freedom.
Now that the regime of Saddam Hussein has fallen, Iraq should be treated by the United States and its allies not as an enemy or as occupied territory, but rather as a liberated country, as France was after World War II.
Although in sentiment and conscience I am a republican, as a political scientist I believe the interests of Iraqi stability and democracy - and indeed Iraq’s very survival as a state - would be best served by the restoration of the monarchy. I have long held this view and still do. Why?
Under a constitutional monarchy, the army, police force, civil service and judiciary - the major pillars of power in civil society - would be linked to the crown and consequently placed outside the turbulent arena of political conflict.
Such a system is crucial for Iraq, where politics has ethnic, sectarian and fundamentalist roots and thus has a tendency to be violent.
I am sure that more than three-quarters of the problems of Iraq - and of America’s problems in Iraq - would be automatically solved by the establishment of a constitutional monarchy. It is also fully compatible with the federal structure of government for Iraq. Furthermore, a monarchy would not be a novel thing for Iraq - it would indeed be a restoration.
Even in Europe, many states with stable domestic politics have monarchical institutions - Britain, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain. In Spain the restoration of the monarchy has contributed significantly to the stability of internal politics and the growth and strength of democracy after years of civil war, world war and dictatorship.
The restoration of the monarchy should ultimately be decided by a national referendum within Iraq, but the issue should be addressed initially by the coalition governments and the Iraqi National Congress.
I strongly believe that the restoration of the monarchy is neither a moral choice nor a philosophical question but a political necessity, based on pragmatic realities of the situation in Iraq. It constitutes, to use a Kantian phrase, the “categorical imperative” for a democratic and stable Iraq.
The only problem with the above proposal is that the United States is republican and equates the institution of monarchy with the despotism of King George III. But I am sure that Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain could be relied upon to point out to the Americans that the reign of George III has doomed forever neither the prospects of democracy nor the political utility of a constitutional monarchy.
All Iraqis are looking forward to a free independent and sovereign Iraq whose democratic values and institutions would be a shining example to the entire Middle East.
spoon: Shouldn't you be referring to a Parliamentry Democracy? Last I heard Iraqs British imposed "Royal Family" was wiped out?
A little Fact: Iraq, Egypt, TransJordan, lebanon were all partially or properly functioning Democracies prior to the 1950's. What triggered their transformation into Dictatorships. I'll give you one guess, It was a war, in 1948.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
That doesn't really answer my questions/concerns. If 51% strongly want a theocracy and 49% strongly oppose one, isn't it better to find a form of government with less opposition? If 90% are willing to consent to some other form of government (even though it's not their first choice), isn't that better?
[/QUOTE]
Beg Parden MV.
I disagree.
Explain your mathemathics firstly.
I seriously doubt that if 49% believe one way and 51% believe otherwise that there is a majority that equals 90%.
Could be thaat the 90% are the majority, and they weren't given a lucrative choice.
Bigger question is...
Are the people being given a lucrative choice?, or a choice between bad, worse, or pick me or else?
or choose me because I am the lessor evi?
or choose me because I am not that evil?
or choose me because my heart is in the right place and I only intend good for you?
Third choice is what I would pick.
I pray those people have a third choice.
people have no choice, no options. government is being set upon them by USA. everyone is against the appointment of chalabi, garner but is anyone listening? i don't think so. methods are the same. only faces have been changed after the war. people still don't have any right to voice concern or to appoint who they want in the government. :-)
Ok, I’ve read all the posts but I’m still not convinced. I don’t think any single template that has so far been proposed for Iraq is or could ever be the best solution.
Too often in all articles and proposals for an Iraqi government, the underlying assumption is wrongly based upon ‘the (supposed) historic and violent ethnic, sectarian roots’ of the Iraqi people. Everyone, in their eagerness to express outrage at the very idea of a ‘theocracy’ forgets that there have been NO ‘religious and sectarian wars’ (as John Armor incorrectly states in the article linked by rvikz) in Iraq. There never has been an extremist element within the general Iraqi populace. Disappointing, I know.
Saddam’s repressive and brutal policies do not prove the existence of supposedly historic sectarian violence. A despot is a despot and he will kill anyone who he thinks is a threat be they Sunni, Shia, Kurd or his own uncle. It makes no difference to him. But for everyone else to pick up and base their arguments for whatever form of Iraqi Government on an assumption of a playoff between generally non-existent sectarian tensions is in my view totally wrong. Some would say it is a sad(dam)istic thought. In other words it is nothing but wishful thinking to try to exploit natural differences in favour of one’s own argument.
The real difference is NOT between Sunni Shia or Kurd but between the Haves and the Have-Nots. Give the people their rights, security, both economical and personal, and a means to provide for themselves, all other differences become insignificant. The issue is which government can best cater and provide for the needs of all Iraqi’s, regardless.
So now I hope you can understand why I don’t believe those assumptions based on inherent differences and playoff of interests. Yes, everyone will have their own agenda but in the end it is not based upon those agendas that they will be judged; this will be on whether they can deliver what all Iraqis NEED.
Back to your question, I think representative percentages, 51-49% or more than 85% are useless. Its been proven a government doesn’t need to rely on that; you can have an unelected president with only 48% popular vote and still claim to be the bastion of democracy. What is essential is a constitution. This will act as a buffer for any given scenario, especially in the case of 51% in favour and 49% against and will serve to protect the interests of the ‘large minority’, in any type of government, be it led by clerics or anyone else.
I think a monarchy, even a constitutional one is a sham and will not work in Iraq. Not in the least because there are no obvious ‘candidates’ for it, as its already been pointed out. The whole problem in the ME is and always has been caused by establishing monarchies.
I think the main objective of the ‘interim’ gov. instead of trying to privatise the oil should be to formulate some sort of constitutional framework and to include everyone in it.
Rhia:
Very well expressed. And, for the most part I agree. Particularly with respect to your statement, "What is essential is a constitution." That statement substantially mirrors my own comment to OhioGuy, "The concept of "super majority" is most critical in terms of the acceptance of the form and structure of the government and adoption of a Constitution. "
What is essential is to get the greatest consensus possible on the form and structure of government and how leaders are to be chosen. If you've got super majority consent to the form and structure (and the rights to be protected), the rest falls into place.
AAG: Reread the posts. You don't seem to understand the percentages or argument.
According to my knowledge of Iraq, Shias are more than 2/3 thats one reason Saddam attempted to keep Iraq as "secular", I think. The Shias will naturally look at Irani formula of the government.
The title of this discussion is on the future form of government in iraq, but all the comments seem to assume that this will inevitably be a democratic system. Is it that everyone believes this to be the only possible system, or that it is the best system available? How about a discussion on alternative forms of government?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Khilafah1422: *
The title of this discussion is on the future form of government in iraq, but all the comments seem to assume that this will inevitably be a democratic system. Is it that everyone believes this to be the only possible system, or that it is the best system available? How about a discussion on alternative forms of government?
[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily.
I think if Iraq is given the full freedom it deserves it may decide on a theocracy. It's possible.
The people are so very religious. The people are so very Muslim.
Quite Posssible.
You forgot to ask me if I thought western governments would allow that choice?
I don't think they have the will. If so, it would be something quite spectacular and not often seen.
And brings us back to square one. Perhaps we should have concentrated on square one all the time. Always.
I don’t know who this cleric is but he is an Ayatollah and his words certainly make a great deal of sense. I particularly like his recognition of the need for "a broad-based government to avoid a “social explosion.”
Ayatollah Hakim Calls for Broad-Based Govt. in Iraq
Tue May 13, 2003 08:26 AM ET
By Christine Hauser
NAJAF, Iraq (Reuters) - Iraqi Shi’ite Muslim leader Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim said on Tuesday Iraq needed a broad-based government to avoid a “social explosion,” apparently backing away from past calls for an Iranian-style Islamic state.
Hakim, who returned from two decades of exile in Iran last week, also said he wanted his group’s militia integrated into a new Iraqi national army following last month’s U.S.-led overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
“I will be working to set up a government which will represent all the people of Iraq, restore security, reconstruct it and take it out of its isolation,” Hakim told a news conference in the holy Shi’ite city of Najaf.
“The majority of Iraqi people are Shi’ite. They should have a political role but not to the exclusion of other Iraqi people,” he said.
“We want a political revolution and government including all the parties and people of Iraq or there could be some kind of social explosion.”
Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), returned on Monday to Najaf, the seat of Iraqi Shi’ite clerical learning and place of his birth in 1939, to a tumultuous welcome.
His arrival added a new voice to the chorus of prominent Shi’ite clerics vying to be heard in Iraq. SCIRI is also poised for a political role as a member of a council including former opposition groups mapping the outlines of a future government.
“We want a democratic government which respects Islam. As SCIRI, we call for an Islamic state because we are Islamic,” Hakim said, but he added that SCIRI had agreed with other opposition groups to form a pluralistic administration.
Before returning home, Hakim had called for an Islamic state. SCIRI advocates an Iranian-style Islamic republic but Iraq’s sectarian and ethnic mix – as well as the U.S. military and political presence – makes that difficult or impossible.
Shi’ites, the majority, were oppressed by Saddam’s secular Baath party, whose rule was ended by the U.S. and British invasion. About 60 percent of Iraqis are Shi’ites, with Sunni Arabs and Kurds forming most of the rest.
ARMED WING
Hakim said SCIRI’s armed militia, the 10,000-strong Badr forces, used to carry arms to confront Saddam’s government.
“Now a part of them will be carrying out security work and rebuilding Iraq,” he said. “This will be a civil rather than a military endeavor. They could be part of the Iraqi military forces.”
Banners draped along the walls of the group’s Najaf headquarters called for all Iraqi sects and religious schools to participate in post-war responsibilities.
Hamid al-Bayati, a member of SCIRI’s central committee, said Badr forces were prevented from crossing into Iraq along with Hakim but thousands of them were already in the country.
“They were like an underground. Now they are over-ground,” Bayati said. “Now because of the situation with the military forces they are not carrying weapons. We are waiting to see what their role will be.”
He said integrating them into the army would be discussed, but added: “That will take some time.”
Bayati said some former Badr forces were doctors and engineers who would now pursue civilian roles. Local police and tribal leaders have also been providing security for Hakim as he tours Iraq, he said.
Police in Najaf comprise civilian Iraqi volunteers, men who served as police under Saddam, and security forces who say they belong to a group which launched an “uprising” against the Iraqi army during the U.S.-led war.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=2731167
The first handing over of governmental control to Iraqi civilians is now occuring in Umm Qasr. The first governing council “comprises volunteers, including local professionals and clerics.” Elections will be held in about a week. Progress!!!
Iraqis Gain Civic Rule in Town, U.S. Pledges Security
Thu May 15, 2003 11:23 AM ET
By Mona Megalli
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The United States vowed on Thursday to keep fighting to restore law and order in Iraq, where one small town became the first to take a key step from military to civilian rule.
Secretary of State Colin Powell said the United States wanted Iraq to start generating revenue from oil and would consider asking for U.N. economic sanctions on Iraq to be suspended rather than scrapped if that got things moving faster.
Iraq’s economy was shattered under former president Saddam Hussein and by the U.S.-led war to oust him which ended in April.
In southern Iraq, the British Army handed over the port town of Umm Qasr to Iraqi civilian rule – the first such handover of power since the end of the war. Local elections that would mark the rebirth of democracy in Iraq are due in the town next week.
Eager to both kick-start the economy and re-establish law and order, the country’s new U.S. civilian administrator pledged to break the grip of lawlessness on Baghdad.
“There is a serious law and order problem, we will continue to address it,” Paul Bremer told a news conference.
“Let us put things in perspective, this is not a country in anarchy, people are going about their business, they are going about their lives,” he said.
Bremer, who arrived in Baghdad on Monday, said thousands of Iraqi police officers, backed and trained by U.S. forces, were on the streets and had detained 300 suspects over the past 48 hours, 92 of them on Wednesday night.
He promised to remove all officials of the former ruling Baath party from positions of authority and issue guidelines under which Iraqis would be vetted to ensure they had no close ties to the toppled government.
“We are determined that Baathists and Saddam Hussein will not come back to (power in ) Iraq. Iraq must remain free and independent, a stable and representative country,” Bremer said.
SANCTIONS
Speaking in Bulgaria on Thursday as part of a tour of the Middle East and Europe, Powell indicated his preference was for lifting sanctions but conceded a compromise may have to be made.
“It is much cleaner to lift the sanctions but as part of the discussion and negotiation process we will look at the idea of initially suspending sanctions,” he said.
That shift in stance could be one way for the United States to win support for a U.N. Security Council resolution enabling the United States and its allies to start exporting Iraqi oil.
The United States says it wants the resolution to be passed next week but its proposal ran into opposition from France, Russia and others partly because it gave the United States the right to sell oil with minimal international supervision.
Washington said on Wednesday it would submit a “modified” resolution shortly.
Powell discussed the resolution in Moscow on Wednesday. On Thursday, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Mamedov said the fate of the draft depended on resolving issues close to Moscow – Iraqi debts and contracts agreed with Saddam’s Iraq.
IRAQI RULE
At a formal ceremony, British military authorities handed over Umm Qasr to an interim council of 12 Iraqis.
“The people of Umm Qasr are now in charge of their own destiny, for the first time in 35 years or longer,” said the town’s former military governor, Lieutenant-Colonel Peter Jones.
The council which will run the town of 45,000 people close to the Kuwait border comprises volunteers, including local professionals and clerics.
Elections will be held in a week to appoint a new council.
Around 200 British troops are in Umm Qasr but most will leave within days, Jones said.
About 30 will stay to help maintain security. British forces had restored power, water and basic services and the time was right to hand over to a civilian local government, he said.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2750557
I thought this was interesting. This is a quote from, "The American Crisis".
"Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon it's goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated."
The Iraqi struggle against 30 years of tyranny may be coming to an end, but it will not be easy.
By the way, the "American Crisis" was written by Thomas Paine during some of the darkest days of the American Revolution, as the Continental Army wintered in Valley Forge Pennsylvania, freezing through the winter without proper clothing and food. By spring the American people had resupplied them, German drill instructors trained them, and France was the first country to recognize America as an independent country. Ironic huh?
OG; didn't the French heavily support the budding US with weapons and training against the British? I guess the French are a sucker for the underdog. Seems like they keep backing the wrong group;)
Zakk,
The French oppose the British in any conflict, Iraq being simply one more example. :p
During the American Revolution, the French provided some provisions, but that did not turn the tide. A far bigger contribution was the "European Generals" who helped to train and drill the Continentals and militia. The Marquis de Lafayette was a key aide to Washington, even though he was only in his 20's at the time. Washington had only one stepson, and he treated Lafayette very much like his son. Lafayette came from a very powerful and influential family in France, and this linkage was quite valuable over time.
We need more clerics such as this individual:
Excerpts of Remarks by Iraqi Ayatollah, The Guardian, 10 May 2003