1

Can Iraq Transform into A Democratic Society?

Aqeel Abood

12/27/2011

Abstract:

This paper will look in to the possibility of establishing a democratic society in Iraq

Post-200, which can lead to a stronger and stable state after a prolonged leadership of

an oppressive, exclusive, and brutal regime was in place? This paper would argue that

establishing a democratic society in very much diverse society will definitely faces a

multiple impediments. Thus, the Iraqi society is in essence more prone to accepting a

stronger centralized state than decentralized one. These impediments varies from, (a)

Tribal influence, (b) ethnic diversity, which in essence will hinder the democratic

process due to the mistrust between all political actors in the country, and (c) is the

strong and dogmatic Shia religious institution that would just reject any political

reforms toward creating democratic society, but, it can press really hard toward

excluding all other political actors and ultimately imposing a Theocracy state.

2

Introduction

After the U.S led invasion of Iraq in 2003, many pessimists Iraqis have

publicly changed their political views about the possibility of creating a democratic

society that eradicates all inhuman practices generated and implemented by the

regime of Saddam Hussein during his reign from 1979 to 2003, and replace these

inhuman practices with more human rights, rule of laws, and chiefly, is to generate

massive participation from all Iraqis ethnic sectors to be again part of the decision

making in the new Iraq. In this paper, I would argue that the pre-democratic process

that has been taking place in Iraq is facing a substantial setback. Such setback can be

attributed to the multiple destructive forces that Iraqi society has inherited for a long

period of time.

Tribal influences, ethnic diversity, and strong dogmatic Shia religious

institutions if combined together would render the hardest blow to the democratic

progress, because they are simply presenting the most destructive forces, which would

ultimately hinder the whole political process, I would argue. It is true, that most

modern and contemporary democracies revived in diverse societies, but the success of

these democracies must not be separated from the historical context of development in

these countries.

Prior to addressing these disparaging forces and their massive implications on

the political process in Iraq, I would like to look at the concept of Democracy? And

why this concept is facing different difficulties in some regions, while receiving all

3

sort of endorsement in other regions? The concept per se, first was originated in

Greece thousands of years ago, but to be quite precise, Demo-Kratia (Democracy was

never utilized and gave the same meaning, which democracy does nowadays.

Democracy in its ultimate definition means that all adult in society or all adult citizens

must participate in all life affairs, politically, socially, and economically (Diamond

and Plattner 2006, p. 168). In other words, Democracy means that the people hold a

supreme power and influence over the government through their elected

representatives. It means that the people essentially have the final say in creating,

implementing policies that have a direct or indirect impact on their lives. It also

means the rule of the majority in any case given, but such ruling must not conflict

with existent interests of the minority.

In real democratic societies, the most appealing principle is to protect the life

and interests of minority. In real Democracy, majority and minority become assorted

to the point where the political, social, and economic distinctions between them

vanish. And this is what Vandana Shiva calls the “Living Democracy”, “which is

based on the living diversity of cultures and communities but also on the humanity

and on the commonality with all beings and life forms” (Shiva 2005, p. 88). Rule of

laws, human rights of all genders, female and male, taking responsibility in sharing

ideas or thoughts within the context of democracy, and not letting the elites hijacking

the real meaning of democracy, these are what define true democracy from what

elitists presenting us with their perspective of democracy.

We have to bear in mind that the surge of democracies all over the world will

not and could not give us a lucid blueprint of democracy and its institutions, which at

the end are destined to protect democracy and all practices come with it. Still, there

are many pressing problems that we should give extraordinary attention to. According

4

to Akbar Ganji the author of The Road to Democracy in Iran “ there are a wide spread

of human violation, and the reduction of human beings to mere tools, and these

pressing issues have generated the opposition of the whole world community” (Ganji

2008, p. 3). Facing improbable pressure caused with the massive Globalization

development in the Western part of the world, democracy has degraded and almost

became something indiscernible. Culture wars, poverty, unjust, massive

unemployment among the young educated people all around the Globe, were the

production of the new economic, social, and political terms set by the new

Globalization. Major cooperation in Oil industry, Tele-communication, has gained

massive wealth, which distributed on a small percentage of elitists and the rest of the

population is struggling to make the lowest standard of living.

Democracy is no longer the triumph that human kind is proud of telling

himself and those who shared all sacrifices with him in the past, are taken for granted.

Democracy at this moment is encountering many difficulties even in the most

advanced and experienced democracies in the world. Indeed, and as Cornel West in

his book Democracy Matters, explains that “no democracy flourish against the

corruption of plutocratic, imperial forces- or withstanding the temptation of

militarism” (West 2004, p. 21). The emergence of new ideological thoughts and ideas

like those of the new Liberal, and new Conservative ideologies, no doubt have paved

the road for more undemocratic practices, and these new ideologies have joined the

Globalization and its rules that decimating everything that stand in their face.

Democracy is indeed in great struggle to keep its principles of justice,

equality, the right to assemble, free speech, and human rights integrated. Democracy

supposed to bring great deal of happiness to all human beings and the late 18th and

early 19th centuries philosophers and economists like Paine, J.S. Mill, and John Locke

5

had carried out such notion and defended it furiously. Paine, J.S. Mill, and John

Locke were the early pioneers of democracy, the rule of law, and decentralized

government. If democracy in the most advanced societies in the West has recently

encountered some unpleasant setback due to the aggressiveness of the economic

development in these societies, which in return the political and social progress have

weakened to the point where the “democratic leadership in their countries are the

ordinary people, which must take the initiative once again back from the hands of

corrupted plutocratic and imperial elites”, according to West (Ibid, p. 23). Indeed, the

aggressiveness of the new ideologies from right to left that have been residing in the

U.S, and the West nowadays have immensely affected and changed the popular

images of democracy and what democracy is all about.

Democracy in its fundamental nature goes beyond the uncomplicated way of

thinking, to go to vote or elect officials every Four years and so forth; it’s rather a

cultural perspective entrenched in our selves or something that we are unconsciously

attached to, in fact, some political experts such as Fareed Zakaria, and Larry

Diamond respectively put it “Democracy has gone from being a form of government

to a way of life, and is really become the only broadly legitimate form of government

in the world” (Zakaria 2003, p. 14; Diamond 2008, p. 13). Democracy has

historically rooted in a very dynamic environment where the transition from

Feudalism to Capitalism was to some extent smooth, but never been without a robust

price. Western Europe was truly the solid ground for democracy. Christianity, and

Protestantism were the heart and soul for the concept of democracy to revives, and

this was due to the development of “Rationalism”, (Weber 2012, p.26; Hoffding 1906,

p. 15). The cultural dimension has played massive role in the establishment of

democracy in the West, and the U.S. and the dimension will continue to play the same

6

role in protecting and sustaining the principles of democracy, hence whatever

difficulties, democracy has been facing, the readiness of the people combined by the

established institutions are capable of bringing back the “living democracy”. If

democracy prospered in the West and the U.S. due to the separation between the

church and the state and to the reformation of the church, which led by the devoted

Christian the German Martin Luther in the 16th century, which ultimately divided

Christianity in to two branches, Catholics and Protestants, the earlier is more classical

in addressing the fundamental question and in answering the question as well, the

later, we mean hear Protestantism is more borne to the opening mind, to re-

interpreting the scared Bible and conform it to the most pressing political, social, and

economic issues.

While Europe and the U.S. since the late 16th century have gained substantial

political, cultural, and economic success by utilizing democracy and liberty as

inseparable political ideologies, and the separation between the church and the state

has led Western societies that had been at war because of religious divisions, border

disputes, economic gain, and lastly expansion to control the Raw Materials in Africa,

Asia, and the Middle East, to societies that ruled by laws and strong political

institutions. In contrast, the major surge of National States in the Middle East, which

came as a reaction to the oppressive nature of the colonial powers towards its

inhabitants. National sentiments were hugely disseminated and independence became

a reality. The distinctive feature of the national state was “Secularism”. High ranged

officers, leftist intellectuals had raisin to the historical occasion. Promises toward

political, social, and economic reforms were addressed publicly, and the tools that

would be utilized to do the reforms are the massive influx of Petro-Dollars, and the

7

energized masses that would exert every effort possible to be part of this historical

transform.

Soon the masses have realized that national sentiments are nothing but

indistinguishable sentiments and they have been out dated. Once these national states

consolidate their power, became tyrannical, and coercive was the only mean to deal

with the political dissidents. Almost Fifty years of repressive, and exclusionary

policies against all the voices that had been asking for the implementation of

reformation in the majority of Arabs countries, from Iraq, Syria, North Africa, to the

ridiculously rich Gulf States, but these voices had never been reached out by the

legitimate International Community to assisting these voices in their legitimate

dreams, which one day may come true. But when the moment has finally arrived, and

major revolutions streamed the region and the most tyrannical regimes in Tunisia,

Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and Bahrain seemed to be easily break down.

But popular revolutions have historically taught us that we must not be

delusional in applauding the fact that these revolutions will bring up political, social,

and economic reforms as the masses have anticipated, as Fareed Zakaria put it

respectively, “People in the Arab world sense the deprivation of liberty more strongly

than ever before because they know the alternative; they can see them on CNN, BBC,

and Al-Jazeera, but yet, newly democratic countries too often become sham

democracies, which produces disenchantment, dismay, violence, and new forms of

tyranny”, (Zakaria 2003, p. 18). Even though, Dr. Zakaria has wrote this book back in

year 2003, but the brutality of current events that have been taking place in the Middle

East and North Africa had been proven very supportive of Zakaria’s observation.

One of biggest catastrophic example of failed democracy in our contemporary

time without exaggeration is Iraq. The most pessimistic observer would never imagine

8

how things could go so badly in the post-2003 U.S. invasion of this country. The

collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003 appeared to be greatly promising for

great portion of Iraqis and for those who still living under brutal dictatorships regimes

in most Arab countries. Iraq was supposed to be the leading democratic force in

Middle East, for being the first state that had elected congress in 1921. Though, the

elected congress was confined to those wealthy tribal leaders and aristocrats, the

outcome of the election was praised enormously by Iraqis except the Shia, whose

prominent clergies at that time had seen the election conducted under the supervision

of the colonizer the British as a legitimate way of accepting the British mandate over

the Iraqi sovereignty. The monarchy that was imposed by the colonizer survived

eventually, and with it, the Parliament, other political institutions, and bureaucracies

have survived as well and during the 1950s, Iraq “was a country with a highly

developed civil society, with Engineers, Doctors, and Architects, many of whom were

women” (Zakaria 2003, p. 154). Indeed, the Parliament, civil society, and the very

organized bureaucracies were very much competent to work within a free atmosphere

up until the 1968 coup. But on the other side of the argument, the true seeds of

democracy weren’t there. If we look carefully to the political structure in Iraq during

the reign of the Ba’ath Party, which endured from 1968 until the U.S. intervention in

2003, which resulted in the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime, a simple

observation will leads us to encounter a very disturbing and painful equation.

After the 1968 coup, the new leadership of the Ba’ath Party brutally

terminated all other political parties from left to right, even those who founded the

party were not let off, they were the subject of termination as well, because their

vision of Iraq as a free country, and active regionally and internationally, wasn’t in the

eyes of other leaders of the Ba’ath Party could render any good to their authoritative

9

way of controlling all means in the country. Therefore, the regime has moved quickly

to terminate all of those who were particularly pioneers in founding the Nationalist

Ba’ath Party and became dangerous rivals, such as Abd al-Khaliq al-Samarr’i, Abd al-

Razaq Nayef, and Hardan al-Takriti (Makiya 1989, pp. 12-25). Thus, the very much

anticipated political progress that Iraqis have been waiting for to see it and live it as a

reality, at that decisive moment became an illusion.

A dictatorship was imposed on the Iraqi Society, such development was

astonishing to the most political observers, because Iraq was destine to achieve what

most Arab countries could not achieve that of Democracy. The regime of Saddam

Hussein wasted no time to consolidate all powers by all means possible to rule the

country with an iron fist. And once the Ba’athist had it all in their way, devastating

sequences were followed. It started with a bad decision to invade the Islamic Republic

of Iran months after Ayatollah Khomeini led a revolution to oust the Shah. The

bloody war caused Iraq more than Iran in fact in human losses and left Iraq in turmoil.

The war brought with it every inconceivable event. The country plunged in a deep

political, social, and economic stagnation. Everything was deferred in the sake of

keeping the war going. The devastating consequences of the war with Iran, seemed to

be so destructive on the leadership of Iraq, and how we know that? We knew that

when the regime made another uncalculated decision by invading Kuwait in 1990, a

shocking move literally, which took everyone by a surprise. Once again, the country

had to pay dearly for something inexcusable. The coalition had left nothing but

destruction all across the country, but the regime magically survived again, and this

time was clearly, a decision was made by the U.S. to keep a brutal dictator, rather than

seen a second reproduction of Shia state in Iraq that most definitely would threaten

the sham stable political order in the Gulf states. For the second time in a decade, the

10

UN, and the international community had failed to rebuke the Iraqi regime for

invading two independent states, and for all the atrocities committed by the regime

against his own people? This is something that needs to be addressed, and I hope will

get back to it in the foreseen future. But, instead of forcing the regime to reverse

course in his instable behavior against his neighbors and his own people by imposing

severe rebuke on the regime and all of those who supported him regionally and

internationally, the UN continued to ignore the issue, and instead imposed a very

harsh sanctions that inflicted so much damage upon the people of Iraq and left the

dictator free to deal with his political opponents, and as a result, the death toll among

children, women, and elderly people was devastating to all political observers and to

all human right organizations all around the world. But whether we like or dislike

what the UN has done, the imposed sanctions on the country deeply weakened the

regime to the point that, when the U.S finally decided to go ahead with its plan to

invade Iraq, the country completely collapsed in about Twenty One Days, that is all.

But how is it possible for a country that its existence based on a theory of Militarism

collapse in such short time? No doubt, the sanctions have not only damaged the moral

and the economic structures in the country, its further have weakened the status quo,

and eventually, the regime could not withstand the pressure and bowed in such short

period of time. But the collapse of the Iraqi regime was imminent, according to the

Defense Minister at the time Mr. Donald Ramsfield. Indeed, it was something highly

predicted, because Iraq was the weakest state in the Middle East, therefore, it was

undisputed decision in the Congress to go forward with the invasion’s plan, added Mr.

Ramsfield.

During the cold war, the U.S. foreign policy was to limit if not contain the

expansion of the Communism in the Middle East, Asia, and Latin America. This

11

policy was massively successful in the Middle East and in Latin America as well as.

By supporting undemocratic and military regimes, the U.S. had isolated and contained

all regimes that adopted Communism theory. But this policy has its sad and dark sight

in return. Those autocratic regimes especially in the Middle East were encouraged by

U.S. policy to greatly violating basic human rights, jailing, torturing, and killing

political oppositions whether they were Liberals or Islamists. As a result, regimes in

Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Jordan, Tunisia, and all wealthy Gulf States have lasted for

decades, even though their records at no points was shameful and disgusted by most

of the Liberal Worlds, and human rights Organizations.

But after 9/11, the American government painfully learned the lesson. It

understood that Dictatorship and human rights violations would breed reactionary

responses that we lately called terrorism. Hence, the United States Government had to

reverse course, and rationally started to advocate democratic development in the

Middle East. And concepts such as “State re-Building has appeared on the surface, to

help bringing peace and stability in the region, a slogan that was disappeared from the

American foreign policy for decades ” (Feldman 2004, p. 19). Iraq was one of those

outlawed states according to the Mr. Bush. And this country profoundly needed a

change. According to Feldman, a law Professor at New York University, and an

advisor to the coalition authority in Iraq in 2003, “for the American policy makers,

and those who planned for the war in Iraq, the objective was to create a reasonably

just and democratic state that is acceptable to Iraqis” (Ibid, p. 19).

The next pages will examine the theory of Nation Building in Iraq post-2003,

which contains great deal of emphasis on democracy, which in return brings with it,

freedom, human rights, and a peaceful transform of power. Iraqis have struggled for

drastic political changes in their country for quite a long time. And throughout their

12

struggle for democratic and prosper Iraq, atrocities were committed by the regime to

silence all active voices that demanding political, social, and economic changes. But

when the regime crashed by the U.S. and other allies in 2003, many of us Iraqis have

thought that our dream of peaceful, prosper, and democratic state has just arrived.

And all what we have to do is just re-construct the never existed constitution, and all

other political institutions. Simple task isn’t it?

But we have to be cautious; that not to be confused that such task would be a

manageable one, especially when calamitous events abruptly took place. The recent

chaotic situation in Iraq proves our vantage point of confusion.

Let me go back to my own argument, which I stated earlier, that democracy in

Iraq will faces excruciating obstacles, and unfortunately these difficulties are acutely

rooted in the Iraqi society, and every day passes by, these obstacles are driving Iraqis

into more distrust, especially between the main political actors, and also furthering the

social structure of the society. In the next pages, I will render to those obstacles one at

the time, and try to support my argument in regard to how devastating these elements

were to the process of democracy in Iraq.

Tribalism

Tribalism is deeply rooted in Muslims and Arabs history, and it’s always

played unprecedented role in the social, economic, and particularly in politics, thus

Tribe may be considered as the Back Bone of social structure of Muslims and Arabs

societies. Tribalism is certainly deviates from country to another and from society to

another, but at the end, Tribalism plays massive roles in social, economic, and most

13

imperatively in the political life of those societies. Iraqi society is one of those Arabs

and Muslims societies, which Tribalism and its outcome appears so vibrant in the

ultimate social, economic, and political relations between all social and political

actors and their base. According to the well-known Iraqi sociologist Dr. Ali Al-

Wardy, the social structure of Iraq as a state is the Tribe, because the Iraqi Tribes have

always considered the Government, any Government as the main enemy, and that is

why, the Tribe as a social structure played an essential role in the Old and Modern

Iraq (Al-Wardy, no year, p.173). Therefore, the tribe is not just a social bond that

makes the internal body of a group of people, but it goes further to make the essential

constitution that comprise all life aspects of that particular group. And here rests the

danger of Tribalism, because Tribalism works in contrast to the Modern state and

Modern society, because “the tribal mind-set derives from that most ancient of social

organizations, whose rituals are obedience, fidelity, warrior pride, respect of

ancestors, hostility of the outsiders, and most imperatively, the dis-obedience of the

Law” (Pressfield, 2006). And the question here is why Tribalism is such a destructive

element in society? And what does that mean to the progress of Democracy in any

case given, especially in our case study Iraq?

When Tribe strongly and constantly involve in destructive confrontation with

any rational structure of a society, then democracy and all political and civil

institutions created by man to establish safe, stable, and progressive society, are

greatly in danger and useless, because in these undemocratic societies, specifically in

the Arab World “the loyalty of the people had never been in favor of the state, but to

their families, clans, and religious” (Ajami 1981, p. 33; Amin 1933, p. 10; Potter

2000, p. 23). In other words, Tribalism becomes an identity when the state does not

live up to its promises in providing its subjects with their essential needs such as

14

freedom, dignity, and prosperity. Additionally, tribe becomes a sanctuary to people

that lost faith of contingent on the state to satisfy their needs. And the danger here

becomes imminent when the tribe is to great extent replacing the state in providing

security and financial support to its members, subsequently the state will fail.

Iraq post-2003 has experienced the excruciating impact of Tribalism. We are

not exaggerating to admit one fact that almost all elections conducted in Iraq since

2005 up until the last election, tribalism had the final say in it. Democracy shall be in

grave danger particularly when prominent politicians associate themselves with

Tribes to gain some solid ground in pursuing masses emotion to win an election. For

instance, the incumbent Prime Minister Al-Maliki and his opponents have relied

heavily on the support of tribes in all elections Iraq has gone through. No doubt those

Tribes can provide unprecedented support for any politician, for Tribes comprehend

great deal of social rituals that can be so crucial to politician to win an election. But

once these mechanisms were established in any society, I think democracy is going to

be in momentous predicament.

Indeed, the Iraqi politicians and behind them the ordinary people are sending

clearly an ambiguous message to the rest of the world and those who are thriving for

democracy, If democracy is the other face of Tribalism. The provocative political

writer Noam Chomsky has explained this dilemma by focusing on the deleterious

impact of such integration between Tribalism and Democracy, “it is a negative model

for democracy promotion to see democracy based on ethnic and sectarian distribution

of offices” (Chomsky & Achcar 2007, p. 52). As an alternative, political actors that

represent all sects in Iraq must disseminate a national massage that the voices of

people are essentially needed and must be heard, if they believe in democracy, which

is consolidated at the institutional level, electoral system, political parties and the like

15

, not on some social relations. But this goal is far from being achieved in societies

where loyalty is ultimately given to the Clan instead of getting the whole nation

involved in building a political system that gives much attention to the diversity of the

population and without repressing the minority. It is a fact that, Tribalism is

devastating the new born state of Iraq. And such argument is clearly supported by the

total absence of civil society. According to Makiya, “civil society in Iraq has been

continuously violated by the state in the name of Ideology, and social networks that

reproduce itself have been destroyed, thus the collapse of values in Iraq has therefore

coincided with destruction of the public realm for unforced human association”

(Makiya 1989, p. xxx).

During my two visits to Iraq in 2005, and 2011, I was confronted with the destructive

observation, that country is still lacking a clear and strong political system, despite the

fact that Iraq had gone through many elections, and despite the fact that major

political players had exerted all efforts to establish such political system. Political

stagnation is so assertive in Iraq, thus it forcing the country toward the uncertainty.

And this was not for sure in the mind of the War Perpetrators who thought of Iraq as

an oasis of democracy in the whole region, once they get rid of the dreadful political

system created and maintained by the Ba’athists Ideology. And I believe, in a strong

sense that the political stagnation is due to the surprising rise of Tribal influences on

the ordinary individual and on the politician as well in making decision.

Government’s offices had been ruined, because they have been managed by

uneducated and inexperienced people. And what is really being annoying is that those

people are members of some leading political and religious parties, which in essence

get the support from their affiliation with Tribes. As a result, the concept of

“Bureaucracy”, which Weber had so much emphasized on in his visionary Modern

16

state, is no longer operative in Iraq, and the reason that is behind such infuriating

reality, is that tribal’ social relations very much embedded in the corrupted political

system, therefore, the state of Iraq if rated among the most chaotic states all around

the world unfortunately.

Other sign of the dismay in Iraq is the absence of any legitimate and

transparent judicial structure. And it should be fair to clarify that the absence of a

reliable legal system in Iraq was not a result of the occupation in 2003, and the

American civil authority led by Bremer to dismantle all civil and legal structures in

the country, which were established decades before the invasion, but these civil and

legal structures were not effective in the same way they were in some other places,

because the dead regime wanted them not to function at all. And this is goes back to

the moment that the Ba’athist regime had taken over the whole country in the late

1970s. Once the war with Iran started in 1980, the legal system in Iraq was decimated

by the policy of the regime that was dedicated to create laws that conform to the new

urgent situation. But such pretext should not concern us any longer. Why? Because

Iraq has a new constitution, which all political and religious parties have been agreed

upon it, back in 2005? And this constitution presumably has laid the ground for civil

society, which the main force in it is the law. But instead, tribe’s rituals have replaced

the legal codes and as a consequence, corrupted officials, murderers, and terrorists

have escaped their ultimate punishment. Civil society cannot be established unless

laws are implemented and old social practices eliminated once and for all, and this is

far from being even considered by all political and religious actors in Iraq. And why is

that? Because transparency as an imperative component of any successful democracy

would severely hinder any attempt by those who are in charge in the political life in

Iraq to do whatever they can do and then simply escape any legal responsibilities for

17

their wrong doing, which most the time is hindering the country politically, socially,

and most imperatively economically. Billions of Dollars were stolen, or wasted on

some imaginable projects or programs that are linked to the re-building of the country.

In a democratic society those who commit such horrible acts will be trialed in a court

of law, and if they founded responsible for such crimes will be jailed for a long time,

but in contrast, criminals in Iraq always set free because they have the support of their

clans. For the time being, I do not believe that the current government is faithfully

committed to address this issue and then constructively working on finding the

alternative, because the current government in Iraq is controlled by groups of thugs

fully committed for corruption, and the irony of the whole situation, politicians and

religious figures consider themselves above the law and on the top of that, they are

totally secured and supported by strong tribes affiliation.

ETHNIC DIVERSITY

One of the most destructive complications that democracy may faces in Iraq

post 2003 is the Ethnic Diversity. The Modern State of Iraq since the day of

independence from the British colonial in 1932 is unfavorably diverse. The new state

of Iraq constitutes a majority of Shia Arabs, minority of Sunni Arabs, and other small

18

groups such as Kurds, Christians, and Turkmen, if all these minority groups combined

together, will constitute 15 to 20 percent from the original population of the state. The

division between these groups is not restrained only on the religious frontier, but it

goes farther to play a key role in dividing these groups politically as well as. As

tribalism, the ethnic diversity in Iraq is another unconstructive element in re-building

of the political structures, which are needed for the establishment of a concrete

democracy that is based on citizenship, human rights, and the rule of law, rather than

relying on ethnic group affiliations to gain some political support. And considering

the later, “Iraq has fulfilled all conditions for prevalent and conflictual politicization

of ethnicity, and how is that possible, (a) Iraq has a majority Shia, minority Sunni,

Kurds, Turkmen, Christians…. And (b) Iraq has a few modern civil society

organizations existed” (Wimmer, 2003, p. 5).

But why such ethno-religious division is troubling in Iraq? And why we attain

the assumption that such division will hinder the process of the new born democracy

in this country? And why not Iraqis can imitate the successful experiment of a country

like India? A country very well known of its multi ethnics and local languages, but

despite the multi linguistics and ethnic’s diversities, India has transferred since its

independent from the British colonialism into a very prosper democratic country.

Answering these questions, may bring us face to face with an intrigue conclusion. If

simply, democracy has worked in India despite all social, religious, and political

divisions within the Indian society, why it cannot be work in Iraq, a country with less

social, religious, and political division? If we give such notion a rational reflection,

democracy may works in Iraq, but the reality of this rational reflection will not be fit

in the internal structure of the Iraqi society. In fact, there are several complications,

which I believe would support such claim. First of all, when the new state of Iraq was

19

realized as an independent state from the British colonial in 1932, and soon after the

independent, nationalism sentiments were advocated by the minority Sunni Arab

politicians and officers who were left over when the Ottoman Empire was defeated

and its lands withered by the victorious such as France and England.

Nationalism sentiments seemed to very much threatening and aggravating the

other major components of the Iraqi society. For instant, Shia Arab that constitutes

about 60% of the entire population felt that they were suspected by Sunni Arabs in

their loyalty to the country. The Sunni assumption was and still that the Shia are

loyalists to Iran, thus Shia cannot be trusted as an essential component of Iraq, nor

would they be ever part of the political life in the new established state. On the other

hand, Shia religious and political figures have realized the dangerous and dire

situation they will be in if they were excluded from the participation in social,

political, and economic activities. And unfortunate, Shia realization of such perilous

matter had proven to be true. With the encouragement of British’s occupation, Sunni

minority sized power, enforced nationalism sentiments, and controlled the state for

almost Eighty years. Those excruciating Eight decades of political, social, and

economic immobility caused the country to luck the very simple internal structures

that are needed to re-building the country, and to re-establishing the fragile

democratic life that Iraqis enjoyed for short period of time during the 1950s, and the

1960s.

But, what has really been the greatest concern for me as an Iraqi observer and

for other political observers is that the Iraqi political scene during these inconsolable

years has suffered mainly because of the luck of trust among all political and religious

actors. And the articulation here is alluding precisely to the unhinged relations among

Shia and Sunni political and religious actors to the point where the possibility of

20

abbreviating the long and painful mistrust among major political and religious actors

seems more and more unfeasible. But what these major actors shall do to replace the

mistrust between political actors in Iraq? The answer is simply rests very much on

the understanding and cooperative dialog between these actors on all levels of life. In

other words, major political and religious actors have to play within the rule of the

game, because political and religious rifts throughout the human history have showed

us, that there are no losers and winners in these rifts. If religious and political figures

have played the game fairly enough, the stabilization of society is more

understandable and more achievable on all levels. But such an ideal conclusion would

is not exclusively practicable in Iraq at present, why, because the mistrust and the

animosity between Shia and Sunni had rooted so deep in the memories of both sides.

Of course, there are many reasons that historically are very much supportive of such

bitterness. Al-Wardy, claims that the Iranian and the Ottoman Empire relations when

Iraq was under the rule of the Ottoman Empire was to a great extent a reason of such

mistrust and bitterness between these two major political and religious actors in Iraq

(Shia vs. Sunni), the mass killing of innocent people, Shia and Sunni, by Iran

sometimes, and the Ottoman Empire some other times in the name of protecting the

Shia or the Sunni people had contributed so much to the bitter relation between Shia

and Sunni, and such bitterness will not be eased or disappeared so easily from the

Iraqi scene very soon (Al-Wardy, no year, pp. 127-30). Bipartisan must be the ideal

guidance between all Iraqi political actors and those who have some say in

determining the future of the country. But these idealistic doctrines are not easy to

establish and maintain in a country, which gave so little to the cultural development of

all life aspects, specifically, the Inter-Racial development between all major political

and religious players. The unfortunate historical Shia’s separation from the state

21

during all the ages, which the Islamic state was founded, is considered to be the only

reason in which the relation between Shia and Sunni had been in dismal, thus the

sectarian division and distrust between these two major Muslim factions became

foreseeable (Al-Zanjani 1982, pp. 300-301).

The Iraqi Study Group Report, which was represented by two high- profile

American Diplomats, James Baker, and Lee H. Hamilton, has concluded that “

Sectarian conflict in Iraq fueled by Sunni insurgency, Shia Militia , and Al-Qaeda, are

the real challenge to the stability of the State of Iraq” (Baker, and Hamilton 2006, p.

xiii).

Unfortunately, no Shia political and religious figures have an absolute

conviction that the other party (Sunni Arabs), would play the game fairly enough, so

can the Shia participate in all political activities and then being major part of decision

making in the country. Mutual understanding and mutual trust between major political

and religious players in the State of Iraq since the day, this “Imagined Community”

was established in early 20th Century are the missing pieces “the government has tried

to keep the Arab Shia at bay, because the Shia tribal organization was seen by the

Arab Sunni as obstacles to the consolidation of modern, centralized state” (Saghieyeh

2000, p. 39). Consequently, re-forming and re-modernizing Iraq as a whole needs for

these pieces to be destructed and vanished from the society, if this formation of the

new state and its democratic institutions is destined.

The progress of such trust can be long and painful, and the major political and

religious components of the Iraqi society do not seem very sincere to tolerantly walk

together in this long and painful path. But for the record, what struck me the most

during my last visit to my homeland was the obvious will of the masses to go along

this path and then make the impossible. No single Iraqi wants to be a politically

22

passive member, and most strikingly, no single Iraqis wants to be part of the current

stagnant situation, which may give the wrong and equivalent impression of the

identical situation created by the Ba’ath Party reign, which was so self-inflecting

wound that left overdue nothing but the images of a disparaging state that does not

respect its own people, and does not give any simple attention to human rights, and on

the top of that, does not want to be part of the new order in the World.

RELIGIOUS DOGMATISM

When we speak of Religious Dogmatism, our attention shift predictably to the

three major Religions that are without a doubt controlling many aspects of our

thoughts and imagination, and these three religions are; Judaism, Christianity, and

Islam. Almost all practical definitions of Dogma are agreed that “Dogma”, is the

conventional credence or canon held by a religion or a particular group or

organization. It is also agreed that Dogma is “commanding”, which means that no one

has the audacity or in a position to disputes or rejects any creed or law that is carried

on by such a concept. In other words, believers must accept without any sort of

reluctance the orders put forward for them by religious, philosophical, or political

Dogmas.

In its essence, Dogma is more often affiliated with religion, simply because,

religion had been dealing with more hard core principles. But, that does not mean,

that Dogma is not affiliated with other essential hard core principles or questions

contributed by Philosophy or Politics. Furthermore, whenever we come across a

theory that considered being “Universal” and has an answer for everything, we notice

Dogmatism is being part of this theory, and practitioners or believers must not dispute

23

the authenticity and correctness of creeds and laws, which dogma contains. In this

sense, Dogma or Dogmatism becomes something alien to the most imperative

concept, which humans are always praising and worshiping that is the concept of

Reason, or the concept of Rational thinking, and that is why some religious and

political observers have been far from being reluctant to denounce Dogmatism. As a

matter of fact, religious and political observers have been emphasizing on the

“similarity between Dogma and Myth and Legends”, (Hoffding 1906, p. 201).

Hoffding’s statement should sums up or to be more precise, is ought to help us in

comprehending the contradiction between what Dogmatism is associating with

keenly, and what our rational thinking is typically associated with acutely.

Let us now begin to connect all the Dots, and trying to come up with a clear

and ideal picture of why we think, that Dogma is very essential in deciding the

outcomes of any political and cultural development? I am fully aware that

Dogmatism in Judaism and Christianity still exists despite the massive rational

development in the Western society, which to a great extent shifted its focus from

Myth and Legends centuries ago to only accepts what is based or explained rationally,

were natural laws are the only laws human has to follow and paid obedience to, which

in return has great deal of impact on establishing a very much organized, stable, and

democratic society, eventually.

At this juncture, the most disturbing fact that Muslim society has come to coup

with is the long complicated establishment of Dogma. This very multifaceted

establishment came as a reflection of the long vanishing of logic and reason from the

intellectual life of Muslim people. In Muslim societies, logic, reason, and rational

implementation of the most advanced methods in Physics, Math, and most

importantly in the human studies, still far from being adopted to bring up social,

24

economic, and political developments, and instead, Dogma, Myth are still controlling

masses life, and as a result, Dogmatism is upholding any constructive progress in all

life aspects. We must bear in mind, especially when we speak of Islam, that there are

different factions, or groups in Islam, which each one of them believes that its holding

the truth in life, in cultural development, and in achieving democratic societies. And

for the sake of my objective, which is to look into that potential threat to the

establishment of stable and enduring democracy in Iraq, I will mainly focus on “Shia

Dogmatism”, because it seems to me that Shia Dogmatism is highly organized and

developed throughout the centuries more than any other Islamic closed minded school

of thoughts.

In my modest experience, I truly comprehend the fact that Dogmatism is more

harmful to the establishment of democracy in Iraq than any other factors, which I

have alluded to hitherto. Dogmatism is not just a mere complication that democracy

has to come to deal with in Iraq, because if that was the case, then we’re dealing with

a- cliché. Dogmatism, in all its faces, in religion, politics, and economic is really

jumping on the wagon and taking a very rigid standing, even on the lowest details of

the life of ordinary people in Iraq. The fact and matter is that Dogmatism is very

much reigning over all other obstacles, such as “Tribalism and Ethnic Diversity”,

because it touches the very thin line of people consciousness.

But the question, which may arise at this point, is what makes the Dogma

completed at the first place? Well, according to Hoffding “dogma will be completed,

when logical thought applied to interpret the tradition” (Ibid, p. 201). And this is

precisely the dilemma in which Muslims and Arabs people in particular are facing up

until this moment. For centuries, Muslims and Arabs Ulema (spiritual leaders), have

been struggling to free themselves and their subjects from the enduring chain of

25

reaction presented by irrationalism that was caused by Dogmatism, especially in areas

like Creeds and Jurisprudence that have so much influence on the very delicate

matters in religious, economic, and politics.

Irrationalism thus is the other face of inertia, which in return keeps a massive

portion of society very much dependent on others to tell them what they should do

and what should not. It’s straight forward causes the suspension of utilizing reason,

which in fact help us or human in general to comprehend better, and to understand

situations, and ultimately to discover and then analyzes phenomenon’. But essentially,

we ought to think of what really keep Dogmatism very much sustainable in societies?

Or what motivate Dogmatism?

The answer comes from Roger White. White, in his article “PROBLEMS

FOR DOGMATISM”, gives us two reasons, which he considers as enormously

imperative to sustain Dogma; “first, dogmatism can seem attractive because it appears

to fit well with a pre-philosophical understanding of perceptual justifications, second,

it appears that unless we allow that some propositions can be perceptually justified

without independent justification for the denial of skeptical alternatives, an infinite

regress looms, and we seek to establish that any perceptual belief is justified” (White

2006, p. 528). However, these two reasons add nothing to our apprehensive state of

mind regarding Dogmatism and it’s fomenting of specific social, political, and

economic structures of any society. It is a dilemma that unfortunately we’re dealing

with, reading between the lines of White’s article.

To explain this dilemma, I will to some degree analyze the impact of the

concept on the outcomes of several numbers of elections that Iraqis had to go through

since 2004, whether to forming a general assembly for the country, or to electing a

government in post Saddam Hussein’s regime. It was not a secret for the majority of

26

us to comprehend the importance role that religious Dogmatism had played in those

imperative occasions to determine the essential form of the government on one hand,

and who is going to be the most benefiting from the outcome of the elections, on the

second hand. As an outsider observer and participator in those elections as well as, I

came to understand the complications that Shia’ school of political thoughts, which

presented here by the most respected and decorated spiritual leaders utilized their

indisputable influence to use a monopoly over the elections and ultimately to enforce

the issue of selecting specific political figures over others, even though their support

of those politicians appeared to be misguided.

This misguided policy conducted by the religious and political leaders in Iraq,

would not be applicable, unless Shia’ political and religious thoughts were utilized

compulsory upon the masses to convince them of the importance of having a Shia

controlled government. And such demands for establishing ever-lasting Shia

government would essentially keep other minorities, especially Sunni people at bay

and then minimizing the danger of repeating the old dilemma, of having a dictatorship

sizing power again, and leading the country to the unknown. And to avoid such

unknown destiny for a country that is practicing democratic process for the first time

in many decades, Iraqis need not to mixing the forces of intellectuals and the forces of

religious leaders. Indeed, the mixture of these two forces (religion and politics), may

be so pivotal in the configuration of stable and prosper society, but this result must not

be taken for granted, in other words, “bringing Ulema and intellectuals together on the

same platform is not a sufficient condition for eventual success”, (Lacroix 2011, p.

34).

27

But, in my modest judgment, Passiveness and nothing else is truly behind

Dogmatism as being a persistent factor in the Third World societies and in Muslims

and Arabs World particularly. Passiveness is the other face of inactiveness and

apathy. It also means replacing rational thinking by irrational behavior, which gives

the opportunity to those who are capable of monopolizing other people thoughts and

then utilize them for their own religious and political benefits.

Let me further more elaborate on this point. During the first election, which

was held in 2005, it was quite clear to those who observed the election whether from

the out-side, or from within, that massive numbers of pamphlets contained “Religious

Fatwa” (religious orders) signed by prominent religious leaders advising ordinary and

educated people to vote for the Shia major parties and if they do not, by Allah “God”,

their nuptials from their wives shall be illegal, hence men must be separated from

their wives. Such Fatwa had never been used during the Modern history of the Islamic

community, even within the Shia’ Community to say the lease. But surely this Fatwa

was greatly utilized in the early days of the Prophet Mohammad. And the rational

reason behind issuing such Fatwa was to encourage people to fight the infidels and to

protect the newly born religion, and any action conducted by Muslim person that in its

merit contradicts the value of this Fatwa, shall be exclusively considered a sinful act.

The argument here is very plain and simple. Submission of the masses to their

superiors’ religious leaders ought not to be in their daily practices of good deeds, but

it must go beyond that to become more and more involved in influencing the most

important decisions that people must make in their lives, and these decisions could be

political, economic, or religious. Once these religious figures are in a position to

dominate the very simple principles of ordinary people, the whole community become

under siege.

28

The images, which typically represented the religious leader as an impartial

and infallible human being, and their saying must be adored and respected, have been

in my view the ideal factors, which set the solid fundamental base for Dogmatism in

the Shia history. According to Kiddie, “people will accept the role of the religious

leader willingly and the acceptance is based on a theological believe that this leader

will bring with him nothing really would harm the society and ultimately, justice will

prevail” (Kiddie 1980, p. 217). The amalgamation of divine power represented by

religious leaders and the naiveté’s of ordinary masses, who believed that religious

leaders have got the divine will to bring constructive changes into the life of masses

shall not deceive our believe that the human being is capable of utilizing reason and

logic, if the ideal social, political, and economic conditions are solidly established,

then human being approaches to intricate and critical matters that touch the very

essential fragments of our life, become reality, rather than a Myth, and in contrast, the

aforementioned amalgamation is only presenting the dark side of theocratic

government. Such archaic government presents nothing to society but destructive

forces that consider any changes in the political, social, and economic structures are

the impacts of Colonialism and Modernity, and most imperatively, such cliché, has

been the main enemy of individual’s freedom, according to Khalil Abdoul-Kareem

(Abdul Kareem 1995, p. 19). Individual’s freedom, the free will of others is the

highest standard that society needs to re-establish. Without such establishment, the

society’s mechanisms of revival do not exist eventually. These mechanisms should

essentially focus primarily on the rejuvenating of the classical or outdated concepts of

life, politically, religiously, economically, and intellectually. But without any

exaggerating these imperative demands are still far from being considered in the

Muslim and Arab Worlds. And Iraq is no exceptional in this regard.

29

CONCLUSION

In this paper, I have tried to give a reasonable insight to those who are

politically interested in figuring out what has been taken place in Iraq since the

American led invasion in 2003. For me and those who are taking the pessimistic

insight in regards to the dire situation in the country, even though this may seems

highly unfair to the exerted sincere efforts articulated by some prominent religious

and political figures in attempting to bring the whole country as one unit and to

promoting peace and mutual trust between all Iraqis social components, our believe

still in no way considered to be part of unreasonable exaggeration.

Tribalism, Ethnic Diversity, and Religious Dogmatism are the most

destructive rudiments that democracy in Iraq is facing up. Primitive social relations

between society components, ethnic sectarian struggles, and obsolete religious

doctrines are presented in this paper as the most disparaging forces that are averting

the people of Iraq from taking the full advantage of the new situation resulted from

power vacuum left overdue as a consequence of ousting the former dictator Saddam

Hussein, and his entire regime. And for these disparaging forces to be vanished from

the scene, mutual understanding of the severity of the situation in the country

combined at the same time with the mutual conviction of all Iraqis that all possible

efforts are needed to get the country where it’s belong to. Iraqis political and religious

leaders must bear in mind that the aforementioned critical forces are taking the

country to a different direction. A direction that is recapping the ever unsuccessful

democratic experiment of Lebanon, which resulted from almost two decades of Civil

War between Shia, Sunni, and Christians in that country. The outcome of the painful

30

civil war in Lebanon was a very ill democratic structure that is a Consensual

Democracy. According to this concept, each sect plays a definite role, and in return, it

presides over a definite structure in the government. Since the establishment of the

Consensual Democracy in Lebanon, the country was never recovered, and still going

through a very fragile political, social, and economic path.

Iraq seems to be heading toward the same fragile path, because the religious

and political actors had agreed to be in this crumbly situation once they decided to

uncover the ever ill position they were already in for their intransigent tribal and

ethnic sectarian perpendicular. Iraqi major political and religious actors have to bear

in mind as well, that any form of democracy that is not conform to the basic principles

of democracy which we know is considered to be as incurable disease that once

spread out in the society, it will be impossible to get rid of, then we all have to pay the

unacceptable consequences.

31

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Al-Wardy, Ali. (No Year). The Nature of Iraqi Society, Orientalia Book Publishers.

Al-Zenjani, Said Ibrahim Al Musawy. 1982. The Twelve Imamate Creeds, Al-

Wafa Publishers, Iran.

Amin, Ahmad. 1933. The Dawn of Islam. The Arabic House Publishers,

Lebanon.

Ajami, Fou’ad. 1981. The Arab Predicament: Political Thought and Practice

Since 1967, Cambridge University Press.

Abdul-Kareem, Khalil. 1995. Islam Between A Theocratic State and A Civil

State, Sina Publishers, Egypt.

Baker, James, and Hamilton, Lee H. 2006, The Iraq: The Study Group Report

: The Way Forwarded- A New Approach, Vintage Books Publishers.

Chomsky, Noam, and Achcar, Gilbert. 2007. Perilous Power: The Middle

East and U.S. Foreign Policy, Paradigm Publishers.

Diamond, Larry, and Plattner, Mary F. 2006. The Electoral System and

Democracy, John Hopkins University Press. See also

Diamond, Larry. 2008. The Spirit of Democracy: The Struggle to Build Free

Societies throughout the World, Time Books Publishers.

Fobete, Dingha Ngoh, “The Quest for Democracy: An Iraqi Perspective”,

University of Kassel.

Feldman, Noah. 2004. What We Owe Iraq: War and Ethics of Nation Building,

Princeton University Press.

32

Ganji, Akbar. 2008. The Road to Democracy in Iran, Boston Review Press,

London: England.

Hoffding, Harald. 1906. The Philosophy of Religious, Translated by B. E.

Meyer, Macmillan and Co, England.

Keddie, Nikki. R. 1981. Roots of Revolution: An Interpretive History of

Modern Iran, Yale University Press.

Lacroix, Stephane. 2011. Awakening Islam: The Politics of Religious Dissent

in Contemporary Saudi Arabia, Harvard University Press.

Makiya, Kanan. 1989. The Republic of Fear: The Politics of Modern Iraq,

University of California Press.

Pressfield, Steven. “Why We Never See Democracy in the Middle East”,

(September 11, 2006), ABC News.

Potter, Lawrence G. 2000. “Oil Profits Have Created Conflict”, In The Middle

East Opposing Viewpoint, Ed. by Williams Mary E.

Sagheiyeh, Hazim. 2000. “Ethnic and Religious Hostilities Causes Conflict”,

in The Middle East Opposing Viewpoint, Ed by Williams, Mary E.

Vavdana, Shiva. 2005. Earth Democracy: Justice, Sustainability, and Peace,

Cambridge, South End Press.

Wimmer, Andreas. “Democracy and Ethno-Religious Conflict in Iraq”, (May

5, 2003), Center on Democracy, Stanford University.

West, Cornell. 2004. Democracy Matters: Winning the Fight Against

Imperialism. The Penguin Press, New York.

White, Roger. “Problems for Dogmatism”, Philosophical Studies (2006),

131:525-57.

33

Weber, Max. 2012. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism,

Lexington, KY Publishers.

Zakaria, Fareed. 2003. The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home

and Abroad, W.W. Norton. New York.