Iraq's next Dictator?

[Gawen]

For the same reason many other countries, like China and Russia; Iraq, and other Arab countries, tolerated a long string of dictators and tyrants as the only form of government they could come up with that created some form of order. The price was a general loss of personal freedom, economic mismanagement, and frequently, wars with neighbors. Democracy is a far superior form of government, but it requires a lot more from the population. More personal responsibility, less corruption, and a greater willingness to work out compromises. Many Iraqis are not sure their country has enough of all that to get a functioning democracy off the ground. Should the new Iraqi democracy prove weak, a new strongman could very well appear and there are many waiting in the wings. For over a decade, Iraq's neighbors, and countries like the U.S., hoped to replace Saddam Hussein, not with a democracy, but with a "more reasonable" dictator.

In what seems to be a common pattern in the Middle East a successful dictator takes control of the security forces (especially the intelligence agency and secret police), and then uses the national wealth, if there is any to pay off enough people to keep himself, and his inner circle, in power. The majority of the population is kept in line via terror and poverty. This was how Hussein did it. There are many Iraqis who know how this works and would not mind being a part of it. On the top part, that is.

What is different this time in Iraq is that the Shia and Kurdish, for the first time, have the fire power to keep the usual source of dictators, the Sunni's, from taking over. So it's very likely elected president, or next dictator, will be a Shia Arab (which comprise roughly 60% of the population.) But Shia leaders are not very respected. Many collaborated with Hussein (who bought off, drove into exile, or killed off, powerful business, tribal and commercial leaders.) There are some Shia religious leaders that are most respected, especially those who stood up to Saddam (and usually had to flee the country, usually to Shia Iran).

It's something of a gamble, these elections. Some of these elected to the presidency and parliament could simply get together, decide to restore dictatorship (in the name of "order"), and that would be that, in other words, a coup. But there is a new idea circulating around the Arab world. Since the 1990s, many among the various classes have been suggesting that, perhaps all the woes of the Arabs (economic, political, diplomatic) are not the fault of others, but of the Arabs themselves. This is not a popular concept, but it has been getting louder, and more acceptable. Personal responsibility is not well received among Arabs, many of whom consider it "un-Islamic." After all, "Islam" means, literally, "submission." What happens is God's will, not, as the Infidels (non-Moslems) say, individuals acting as their consciences dictate.

So in Iraq, it's not just a matter of politics, but religion and culture as well. It's not a just a matter of who the next dictator of Iraq will be, but whether the Iraqis are willing, and able, to rid themselves of hundreds of years of dictators to try democracy.

[Zoot]

In what seems to be a common pattern in the Middle East a successful dictator takes control of the security forces (especially the intelligence agency and secret police), and then uses the national wealth, if there is any to pay off enough people to keep himself, and his inner circle, in power. The majority of the population is kept in line via terror and poverty. This was how Hussein did it. There are many Iraqis who know how this works and would not mind being a part of it. On the top part, that is.

So in Iraq, it's not just a matter of politics, but religion and culture as well. It's not a just a matter of who the next dictator of Iraq will be, but whether the Iraqis are willing, and able, to rid themselves of hundreds of years of dictators to try democracy.

I agree with your conclusion, but for different reasons. The common pattern is not quite "a successful dictator takes control of the security forces (especially the intelligence agency and secret police), and then uses the national wealth, if there is any to pay off enough people to keep himself, and his inner circle, in power." In order to make this description accurate, we must change "A successful dictator takes control" to "The United States funds and supports a vicious criminal or general in taking control".

Arabs are as capable of personal responsibility as any other race. It's mildly shocking that I am even forced to say this. The problem is that personal responsibility and participatory democracies are diametrically opposed to the United States' interest in client states. The standard practice is to back a figure or group, such as the US support for the mujahadeen precursors to the Taliban or the US support for Saddam Hussein, regardless of how they treat the general populace, and set them up to favour US investment at the expense of the majority of people in the country.

Because personal responsibility and participatory democracy gets in the way of the interests of the US and her dictators, anyone attempting to form meaningful democratic groups is harshly punished by the appropriately trained privileged ruling class. The often brutal practices of the US-backed governments are barely mentioned back in respectable circles in the States, and when they are mentioned, they are glossed over or justified by demonising and marginalising popular resistance to the regimes. The most obvious example is the ridiculously unbalanced level of reporting of events in Israel, where Israeli deaths make news when they occur, but Palestinian deaths are often hardly mentioned.

So it really is a question of how long until a dictator or brutally oppressive regime is established in Iraq. There is no chance of any meaningful democracy, because a meaningful democracy would favour the interests of the people, which would not favour the interests of the US. Rather, there will be a US-approved nominee for Iraqi elections (who will be described as "moderate", which translates as "US-approved"). Any candidates actually representing the interests of the people will be described as "extremist" or "radical", and intense scrutiny of the sins of their past will become a focus of Western media, while similar or worse sins of the US-backed moderate will barely be mentioned.

The elections will either be rigged to ensure the moderate wins (in which case the protests of impartial observers of the election process will be given a mention in the media then promptly forgotten, and in the unlikely event that the UN attempts to become involved in ensuring a democratic election, the US will veto any resolutions, voting alone against it (apart from the ever-obedient Israel))... or specific groups will be obstructed from voting in barely reported ways, or the populace will be punished until they get the idea and vote for the moderate.

People commenting on these events in the US media will be designated extremists and radicals and their opinions thus marginalised and dismissed. There will be video footage of George W. Bush shaking the elected leader's hand, and the success of an established democracy will be displayed as justification for the illegal invasion in the first place.

Continued resistance to the US-established regime will continue to be designated as terrorism and presented to the public as a small minority of essentially evil Arabs who get a kick out of killing people. Humanitarian organisations like Amnesty International and Oxfam and Red Cross will continue to protest the treatment of the Iraqi people, and their protests will go unreported or marginalised in proper discourse.

Meanwhile, Venezuela will creep its way into the news, starting with occasional mentions and growing from there.

[beyelzu]

I would just like to point out that that was our policy during the cold war. The us opposed russia and democracy equalled communism quite often so we supported the elite and strongmen throughout the world.

[Gawen]

Zoot,
It's not so much "different reasons". We all know there's a plethora of reasons. My OP may have sounded not well thought out. It was thought out, but glossed over...quite thinly really. I was however most likely mis-spoken of "the common pattern", yet several patterns exist.

Arabs are as capable of personal responsibility as any other race. Quite true and makes your next two paragraphs moot, or at least contradictory in that the responsibility is not their's alone if they are backed by someone else, regardless if their veiws are diametrically opposed. It is nothing but a huge power play. However, your entire posts rings true in my mind.

[Zoot]

Quite true and makes your next two paragraphs moot, or at least contradictory in that the responsibility is not their's alone if they are backed by someone else, regardless if their veiws are diametrically opposed. It is nothing but a huge power play.

I think what I meant was, any of us in a situation where attempting to participate in meaningful democracy gets you disappeared would have trouble with personal responsibility. The pseudo-democracies established by the US in client states are not meaningful democracies.