Topic: Politics
After the incident in which a British helicopter crashed onto a residential block in Basra, I decided to write to an Iraqi poker player whom I have known for about a decade.
My e-mail to him:
I've been wondering about something today. On the news I saw that a British helicopter had come down in Basra. There was a small crowd of mostly young men. Many were throwing stones at it and waving their fists in the air. An observer would feel that they wanted coalition troops out of the country. They are entitled to want this, of course.
But I'm puzzled because Iraq's had three elections and I believe that they were fair ones. So if there was a widespread feeling that the coaltion should leave, why didn't people vote for parties that promised to demand a coalition withdrawal?
Or do the young men I saw on TV represent only a minority of opinion?
His reply:
Sadly, like most people, you are under the misapprehension that the elections in Iraq represent victory for democracy. In reality they represent a defeat for all the democrats in Iraq for the following reasons. During Saddam's regime there were no organised secular political parties in Iraq because he killed/suppressed all politicians who did not declare their allegiances to him. In fact most of the Iraqi democrats were living in Europe. The only organised resistance to Saddam's regime were the religious Mullahs in the south and of course the Kurds in the North.
After the occupation, the true Iraqi democrats had no popular bases in the country. They needed at least three years to organise themselves into effective political parties with branches in all the major cities through which they can present their secular political programs. Holding three elections in three years was one of the biggest mistakes committed by the Americans because they forced failure upon the people who want democracy and handed power to the mainly religious parties who believe that the Islamic Al-Shariah is the only way forward.
At the moment Iraq is dominated by more than four militias - two Kurdish forces known as the "Besh-murgah", two Iranian backed forces("Al-Badr Core" and "Al-Mehdi Army") and a few more groups consisting of former Baathist and religious Sunni parties(like Hamas in Palestine or the Moslem Brothers in Egypt). Iraq will be stable IF and ONLY IF one of these militia forces dominates the political scene. Sadly this will never happen since none of the Arab militias can defeat the Kurdish forces and vice versa. The elected Iraqi politicians STILL have not formed a government AFTER MORE THAN FOUR MONTHS of this year's election. I'm afraid the only way out is a civil war which will lead to a partitioning of the country.
The British forces in the south of Iraq have effectively handed the power to Iran via the Badr Core and Al-Mehdi Army .These two Shia militias are imposing their interpretation of the Shariah on the people in that region; for example they killed six girls in Basra because the girls were wearing blue jeans!! They also killed owners of off-license shops in Basra,Omara...etc.
The coalition forces are delaying the inevitable.The longer the Brits stay the more likely things will turn very sour for them. Most Arabs don't like to see British or American soldiers in their country. The sooner they leave the better.
I hope the above answers your question. Let me know if you disagree
I replied:
thanks for your reply. I agree that it would have been better for there to have been a delay before holding elections in order for secular parties to develop. But that was never possible. Instead Iraqis will have sectarian politics, until they get disillusioned with it. Life under sharia is only appealing to those who haven't had it. Those who've seen it up front in Iran, Afghanistan and Algeria are glad to see the back of it.
I have a website in which I discuss my political opinions. Would you object if I posted what you wrote? An opinion from a real Iraqi would be of interest to the readers. I don't have to name you if you don't want that.
As far as partition is concerned, if it's what people want, they why not? When the British left India it got partitioned into Pakistan and India. Later Bangladesh broke away too. Would you wish to stick them all back together again?
He replied:
My father was Kurdish and my mother was the daughter of an Arabic father and a Turkish mother. The wife of my brother Ali belongs to the Shia sect. Ayad Alawi, the prime minister of Iraq during last year, was my very close childhood friend. He is a Shia Arab, but his first wife is a Christian. His brother is married to a lovely Kurdish woman. I can spend hours listing intermarriages between the various Iraqi sects. The truth is Iraq is a melting pot of Arabs, Kurds, Turks and Iranians
You seem to think that sectarian politics have always dominated the Iraqi political scene. This couldn't be further from the truth until the onset of the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s. Then Saddam introduced ethnic division by deporting over half a million Iraqis, belonging to the Shia sect, to Iran under the pretext that they were of Iranian origin/nationality. I can assure you these evictions met the quiet disapproval of most Iraqis.
Sectarian/ethnic divisions become nearly irrelevant in countries blessed with strong and growing economies. Strong economies in the developing countries, can only be built by determined leaders, who enjoy the support of regional as well as international powers.
Sadly, all the Arab countries lack the correct leadership, not because their culture forbids it but because the regional and international political environment/scene does not allow it. Instead, corrupt kings and emirs or dictators supported by corrupt and brainless army officers and religious leaders plague us. Most intelligent high school graduates in Iraq go to medical or engineering colleges; the military and religious colleges receive the dim wits with the lowest grades; I think this happens in all of the Arab countries and may be part of the problem.
Many people, including many Arabs, believe that the Arabs are shackled by their outdated Islamic cultures…etc. I cannot see how culture, which is basically transmitted behavioural patterns, can influence the way a doctor, engineer or a road sweeper perform his/her job. In my opinion this is a myth propagated by ignorance or racism. Consider this fact. There are over 200,000 Iraqi professionals in the UK-most of them live in London. All of them have established very successful careers, and yet, none of them have changed their culture or religion. The same applies to the millions of Arabs living in the UK and Europe. They survived and flourished, despite the cultural and language difficulties they encountered, because the strong economies of the European countries offered them a multitude of opportunities to excel.
You suggest that people will turn against the religious parties after they realise the unpalatable nature of Al-Shariah. The Mullahs in Iran are still in power after over 25 years of the Islamic "revolution". They may, and I hope will, eventually lose power. But, they have delayed the creation of stable democracies in the region for many years.
The same is happening in Iraq with the inadvertent help of the Americans. If you look carefully at what is happening there, you will realise that the Mullahs are in fact outwitting Bush and Blaire. The so-called coalition forces are fighting the Mullahs' opponents in the central region of Iraq while the Iranian backed Al-Badr and Al-Mehdi militias are tightening their grip over the southern regions of Iraq.
You can post my opinions if you wish to do so.
My thoughts:
There is usually a difference in life between the best possible solution and the best solution possible. Delaying elections for years to give secular politics a chance falls in the former category, not the latter. His point about the Iranian mullahs not being ousted despite their growing unpopularity is true, but they were never voted into power in the first place either. We have to start somewhere with reforming the middle-east or it will still be a backwater of "corrupt kings and emirs", 'brainless army officers and "religious leaders" for decades to come. That's not something we can tolerate any more, as it's the part of the world with the highest proportion of young people and the mixture of a rising youth population and the lack of economic opportunity due to nepotism and corruption is as dangerous as any WMD programme. It's worse in the part of the world where people are taught by their religion that they have the most recent word of God, yet see themselves behind the West and Asia economically and diplomatically. The result of this combination is rage. To deflect this rage, the dictators have redirected hatred towards the West and Israel by permitting the media and mosques the freedom to speak out against external 'enemies', in exchange for the dictators being kept out of the crosshairs.
He is right when he says: "Sectarian/ethnic divisions become nearly irrelevant in countries blessed with strong and growing economies." It's notable that the most stable Arab countries are those with strong oil revenues and small populations. Places like the UAE, Bahrain and Qatar are oases of calm by comparison, but it's a quirk of geology and demographics that has made it possible.
As for Iraq now, since this e-mail exchange, the Iraqi politicians have at last formed a government. From now on they will have to insist that they have a monopoly on the use of force, since they alone reflect the voice of the Iraqi people who bravely voted in three elections.
_ DY
at 12:32 PM BST
Updated: Monday, 22 May 2006 12:39 PM BST
