One path to peace in Iraq
Iraq, Analysis, 2/4/2007

Looking at the grim figures surrounding the Iraqi situation, from about 100 Iraqis being killed every day, and another 100 being injured, and about 10 percent of the population becoming displaced from their homes, with about 1,500 more being displaced every single day, and other surveys on Iraqis mood and confidence all speak of an extreme suffering by Iraqis under current conditions.

To understand the magnitude of part of the problem, 100 Iraqis being killed every day is equivalent to about 1000 Americans being killed every day if we scaled a roughly Iraqi population of some 30 million to a roughly US population of some 300 million persons. Similarly, about 1000 Americans would be injured everyday, and 15,000 Americans would be displaced every day.

The US policy can be said to have lacked interest in a genuine democracy in Iraq by those that some label as neo-conservatives. There interest was political and military dominance, as demonstrated by wanting to bomb Iraq initially, on trumped up charges, and now they want to do the same to Iran.

Once stuck in Iraq, they tried to make it seem like they were interested in Iraq being a democracy. Now again, some are strongly promoting or would like the USA to strike Iran. But doing so, will most likely set Iraq on fire, because most Iraqis are Shiites with either close ties to Iraq or appreciate that Iran stood by them during the Saddam Hussein rule. A strike against Iran would most likely cause the Shiites to rise in mass against the USA in Iraq. So how does striking Iran promote Iraqi democracy if it will dramatically increase violence in Iraq and cause the USA to be likely expelled out of Iraq? The USA has had plenty of interesting advice from some of these voices and friends of Israel, whose interest ever coincides.

The USA strategy, because from the beginning was not meant to build a democracy in Iraq has been a grand failure. The invasion of Iraq was never meant for that purpose. But, even after the US administration wanted a cover for its stay in Iraq, and making the best of the circumstance, a change of public policy seemed appropriate under the cover of building democracy. Since building democracy was a half hearted effort, no true effort was made to build the foundation of a strong government in Iraq.

Also, building a strong military means building the managerial, strategic, and tactical capabilities of such an Iraqi army at the highest level and on down, and not merely to have foot soldiers. The US feared Iraq having a strong military, and did not support one, but now, at this very late stage, it sees itself desperate for one.

Similarly, on the economic front, the strongest entrepreneurial economy in the world, under supposed free trade administration, showed their great lack of imagination and believe in building a free market, by supporting strong rule of law, to safeguard the public and business interest, by having a well respected police and fair judicial system. These are basic layers for having a strong and functioning government. On top of these failures, the building and promoting of a dynamic class of small and medium size Iraqi businesses seemed to be lacking, especially if we look about how much money is spent on the US military and private security outfits, versus what is spent on Iraq business promotion and effective public projects.

Instead, the Iraq adventure seems to have been as if it was transformed into a US business and jobs plan, for a military economy, and creating a large industry of businesses that specialize in security and the like, to the detriment of money going to the benefits of Iraqis.

For what the US is spending on the war in Iraq, if that money is purely handed to Iraqis as cash, it would go a long way, very likely, towards achieving peace. But war, as a business, has many interested parties, and politicians find it easy to spend two billion dollars a week on war rather than spend the same two billion a week on peace.

Culturally, Iraq seems to have seen a massive cultural disintegration, where Sunnis and Shiites, who once lived harmoniously, and intermarried frequently, are now afraid to even reside in the same neighborhood.

The Iraqi parliament, which ideally should have brought the Iraqis to debate their problems in a civilized forum seems to have failed in materializing this role. So it maybe fair to call it a failure in this central role.

Therefore, with a terrible security situation, a terrible government, a terrible economy, and most importantly, a lack of confidence of Iraqis in their government, and their own fellow citizens, the situations deserves a fresh look in which some fundamental questions need be asked.

On the regional levels, the Arab states are interested in a stable Iraq to a point, but are not interested in Iraq to be stable and successful enough to be a vibrant democracy, as some may consider this threatening to some of them. On top of this, these Arab states have true concerns about US intentions that the US is not so much interested in promoting democracy, as much as promoting US interests, and by de facto, Israeli interests which seems to always piggy-bag on US interests or drives it. So the US can be seen as using democracy as a tool to promote its own interests, and not promoting democracy and human rights.

Regarding Iran, the USA has pursued a very flawed policy in its strong opposition to Iran's nuclear development. Any further escalation in this regard I speculate will severely harm the USA, no matter how much the friends of Israel are itching to create a fight between the USA and Iran, so that Israel will continue to feel a dominant position in the region. Some also in the USA also see interest in the US being the pure dominant power, and how Iran can alter such regional power equations.

The situation is complex, and the USA is before some choices, that are difficult. The choices are not necessarily military. The most important question of these maybe how much those making decisions believe and understand the true interest of the United States. When US citizens speak, they all claim to have the US interest at heart. But rhetoric should not substitute for intelligence regarding such important issues. I believe the central question that needs to be asked is whether the USA sees democracy as a genuine instrument for creating internal harmony among citizens who share a common country. If this believe is true, and there is a true understanding of this, then this can be a foundation for setting about solving Iraq's problem.

Staying focused on this aspect of the solution, if we look at the disintegration of the social and political bonds and structures in Iraq, there is clearly a need to deal with these issues head on. Neither the Sunnis or Shiites trust each other, and the Kurds trusts neither, apparently. Therefore, a democratic system, that allows these people to have a system where they can debate their differences in a civil forum, and under a legal structure that guarantees their rights and assures their safety, should be considered as essential. Current democracy, as practiced in the west, while it may seem advance to westerners who are used to it, may be completely surprised and unaware of how flawed their system is. Democracy in the west was built over a long period of time, very gradually, so that its flaws are hidden because it has achieved stability over a very extended period of time. But, to bring democracy to a new place, if one is not aware of the flaws of democracy, will soon be at a loss to explain why it is not working when it is implanted in a new location. Therefore, without an understanding of how severe the flaws of democracy are, it will be hard to explain here the failures of government of Iraq.

To this end, I will be very brief in the solution, but the details, can be found in my book "A New Form Of Government: Rational Government." In essence, without a rational voting system, democracy is not rational. In the book, I demonstrate why simple majority voting is a flawed system where 51% of the voters in parliament can determine decisions. In Iraq for examples, the Shiites can rule completely, and the Sunnis and Kurds will feel very threatened, especially in light of historic resentments. Here we see that 1 percent, the difference between 51% and 49%, or more precisely in this example 2% (51% minus 49%) are the number of people who would be making the decisions, and in essence, being the new dictators of Iraq. Why would a nation allow 1%, 2% or 5% or its population to dictate decisions on the rest of the population? This brings fear and suspicion of the others, and in this case, the Sunnis, or the Kurds fearing Shiites as one example. While in the west, 1% rule is never looked at from this perspective, in the book, there is completely explanation that demonstrates, in simple and rigorous terms, how flawed this system is.

So when we talk about democracy, which has come to mean simple majority voting, we need to speak about a new form of government. A form of voting that looks at the difference between those who are in favor of a law, and those who opposed such a law. By looking at the difference, this would be the guide. (read article bellow for brief explanation). So, if the Iraqi system of government was changed to require that 40% margin of difference for laws to pass and to govern, this means, the parliament, will only be able to pass laws if a minimum of 70% of them support a law (70% in favor - 30% oppose = 40%). This would immediately guarantee that laws will only pass when there is strong understanding that the laws are correct, and in harmony with the different opposing views in society. This will help address the concern that one group my try to force its agenda on another group, be it Sunnis over Shiites, or Shiites over Kurds or Sunnis or Christians, etc, unless there is common understanding of the correctness of the law.

If you are an Islamist that wants to impose your views on others, or whatever views someone else may have, this provides a structure, where you can participate, but cannot dominate by sheer population strength numbers, but must win by the strength of your argument to gather diverse support. While this may seem an abstract and a distant solution from the day to day military and political infighting, without this basic understanding, all that will be done in Iraq will be Band-Aid remedies to a patient who is suffering cancer thru out the body. What is required is true understanding of the underlying problem, and proper treatment.

Therefore, if the interest is real in solving Iraq's problem, then some fundamental institutions, with minor adjustments, which can be very hard to make but is doable, will be needed, to change the functioning of the Iraq government's main authority. This requires sharp minds showing managerial and executions skills leading such efforts, with the full understanding of these problems, to deal with these interlocking issues.

Under a new system in Iraq, all sides, with no exception, would be invited to the negotiation table. They can have all the forums and respect they need to present their views, to see what voting ratios are needed to agree on such a rational voting mechanism, where they all can participate, and understand, why such a voting system, as I explain, is a rational system. No one excluded would mean, not excluding even those who fought the US army, without exception, or anyone who killed a Shiite or Sunni or Kurd, or a Baathist of any kind, etc. If the values are those of vengeance and being stuck in the past rather than forgiveness, then success is not likely take place.

An effective parliament that adopts the requirements of a rational government, is a first and most important step. Second, the fidelity of this system, and its nurturing and needed supporting institutions, and standards of ethical standards must be developed strongly and observed. These means complete transparency for the Iraqi government, in its institutions of parliament, judicial, police and army. This is where the money needs to be spent, much more importantly than on the army and arms. A billion spent to establish transparency and complete confidence in the fairness and competency of the system, will do what 100 of billion of dollars cannot do.

If this idea is to be a half hearted commitment to fix Iraq's problem, then it may not be worth trying. If it is for a US political party, where Republicans would use this against Democrats, or Democrats against Republicans, then it may not be worth it. This will challenge many people to the extreme for the hurt that has been brought on them by the lies of the past, and political gamesmanship, that is inevitable and is the daily diet of politicians, and advocates. Many will want to extract their political wins, and rightly so, for having been correct in opposing the war and the policies surrounding it. Therefore, it can be very legitimately argued that those who opposed the war should get credit for their position, and they should have the credit if their support is being sought. But they are stuck in caring about Iraqis, while opposing the administration's policies on these issues, knowing full well that helping the administration further, will only be supporting political opponents whose philosophy of solving problems have shown itself to be flawed, and will help continue such mentality and policies in their future if such opponents win again. And since there is no guarantee that the current administration that it will execute the new policies properly, those who opposed the war to become partners now, may gain equal blame at next election time. This can be a true dichotomy to some.

When I hear the voices of those who opposed the war, on strong moral convictions, and principled positions, I feel great pain writing these lines at this stage, only to feel as if I am helping those who promoted this war and its damaging consequences. My only consolation to them, is to read my new book. I believe those who understand its writings, and support it, will win the future.

Meantime, the central question is: Is the interest genuine in building a prosperous and advanced Iraq, or is this a political or economic game of self-interest? Usually, and most often, it is a game. But sometimes, the sufferings of others inspires some to transcend their instincts.

From the upcoming book "A New World Government" to be available shortly this month.
By,
Jamil Kazoun

Author of the book " A New Form Of Government: Rational Government"

Previous Stories:
  US policy going down Israel's failed trails   (8/1/2006)
  Iraqis to unite asking US to leave?   (7/15/2006)
  Iran has full right to pursue full nuclear development   (1/28/2006)
  A new form of government   (1/7/2006)
  The Iraq politics issue has two dimensions   (12/8/2005)
  Comments on a constitution for Iraq, part 2   (8/27/2005)
  A constitution for Iraq   (7/2/2005)

Please add a link on your webiste pointing to ArabicNews.com and bookmark ArabicNews.com & subscribe to our daily email news bulletin.

Search