Thursday, October 13, 2005
Wednesday, October 5th, 2005
Good morning…
The month of Ramadan has started, it is the month of Fasting, Mercy, and Forgiveness…
And we are away from home…
This is our first Ramadan outside of Iraq since 15 years…
It saddens my heart that millions of Iraqis left Iraq after the war, looking for sanctuaries in Arabic and non-Arabic countries…
I wish we can all agree on one prayer: that peace and security should return to Iraq, and we could return to our homes before the next Ramadan…
Amen…
And I pray for all people uprooted from their homelands, first of them being the Palestinian people, to go back home, and for peace and justice to reign in their countries…
Amen…
********************************
I spent the days of the last week reading books about the Authority and the Opposition in the history of Islam. Then I looked through different Internet sites the talk about the new Iraqi Constitution, and the former Iraqi Constitutions…
I enjoyed reading them all, in spite of getting a headache from too much staring at the screen, but that didn't stop me from moving on to have a knowledge about this important topic… where the debate continues, and the discussions are heated, about the new Iraqi Constitution…
***********************************
I discovered that there were many constitutions in Iraq, the first of which being the one written at the Ottoman Era, in 1876, which was applied for a short period, then frozen for some time, then re-applied in 1908… I read its paragraphs and found them reasonable; they spoke of the individual's freedom and protecting his dignity, he had the right to express his opinion, join Societies or Parties, there was the freedom of the press and expression, it was declared illegal to torture people during interrogation, and some other items all within the human rights we are talking about, which means they were well aware of it, recognize its importance, so they put it in the wordings of the constitution…
But the question remains: How much of it was implemented? Didn't the Iraqis suffer the shortage of freedom and expression; didn't they suffer from torture, prisons, and the executions of nationalists who were against the Ottoman state? Didn't people suffer from injustice, the poor distribution of fortunes and posts, in spite of the presence of some items stating that all citizens are equal, in all fields of life?
mmmm…
Where is the flaw, then?
********************************************
I thought a lot after I read some books about the Islamic history, and the Philosophy of ruling… I found that the Ottoman state wasn't an expression of the Islamic state, or its philosophy of ruling… in spite of the constitution saying that the formal religion of the state is Islam…
The real Islamic state had a short and limited experience in history, for it started with the ear of the Prophet Muhammad (May the prayers of GOD be upon him, and His Peace), who was followed then by the four Rashideen Caliphs who, in spite of all the problems that rose, were trying to follow the path of the Prophet (prayers and Peace be upon him), in the simplicity of dealing with people, listening to their problems, in not being proud, or asking people to worship them, by not surrounding themselves with luxury, the signs of richness, or haughtiness, by appointing officials in the far-off towns to manage the state affairs, and questioning them every now and then, and if signs of sudden richness appeared suddenly upon them, they would be brought, and asked: How did you acquire this?
The rulers used to implement the saying of the Prophet (prayers and Peace be upon him): "You are all shepherds, and all are responsible for your herds…" The Caliphs were obsessed with the idea of faithfulness to the Muslim's money and their souls, and how to protect them, and what they shall say to GOD on the Day of Judgment, if there was a complaint against them from a Muslim, or an accusation of slackness…
While the ethics of the Persian kings in Iran before Islam and the Romans in Europe was to glorify the king, surrounding him with exaltation rituals as if he were a god….and he used to be surrounded by slaves, bondmaids, silver, gold, and adulating ministers…..
These expressions were quoted by the Caliphs of the Umayyad and the Abbasid states, and then by the Sultans of the Ottoman state… these aren't Islamic ruling philosophies, even though it was claimed to be thus.
****************************
After that I completed reading the Iraqi constitution during the British Imperialism and the Monarchial rule, which was issued in 1925. I looked at its text, which was also respectable, talking about the rights of citizens, their dignity and freedom, the legislative, judiciary, and executive authorities, the king's and the Parliament's (the nation's council) jurisdictions, whose members are elected, and some other details, all of which are nice, giving the impression that everything is going to be all right, and that the people aren't going to face any problems…
But when you read the history of the people then, how much injustice they had to endure, the bad distribution of wealthes, shutting down the newspapers and canceling the Parties every now and then, as if the whole matter was going on according to the moods of the faction holding the power…. Then you make the deduction that the supervisors of the constitution didn't realize on the ground what was written in it…..
I was amazed by two bits of information about the 1925 constitution, or the related issues:
- First, that the Parliament was terminated after interferences from the British Colonies Ministry, and how that ministry changed many a text so as to conform to their interests… and all that wasn't announced for 8 months, until the Iraqi oil investment treaty was signed secretly with Britain, or some other western companies, why?
So it wouldn't be published at first in the official governmental documentary newspaper, and thus turning into a treaty that must be discussed by the Parliament, and then decide to agree or reject it….
So, the treaty was signed, then the constitution was published six days later, as if the former had no relation to the later, meaning; it was signed before the official recognition of the constitution, so it is a reality that shouldn't be discussed…
The second note I found in Miss Bell's diaries, on the year 1924, in which she says: "… I have to tell you that his Majesty the King has found out the secret about running the Parliamentary councils, it is really very simple; all you have to do is call upon some of the prominent personalities among the representatives, to tell them that a certain issue or procedure is going to be put forward tomorrow or the day after, and that you wish them to present some petitions before the appointed date, in which they declare their wish to approve that certain issue, after that, the head of the council would declare during the calling for the representatives to vote about that issue, that the approval of majority of members was declared, through written petitions handed over to him concerning that matter, and that would be that….".
Now, I look sadly, in amazement as I read all this…wondering about its meaning? Is this the western democracy they always brag about, as being the best way to rule, that is worthy of leading the new world order…..?
So, when I read the transgressions committed by Britain when in Iraq, in spite of the presence of all the bases of the western ruling order; An elected Parliament, a constitution, legislative, judiciary, and executive authorities, each with its authorities specified in the constitution…. Nevertheless, there was deception, and forging of the people's will, and those who were elected soon forget their oaths, in which they have sworn to remain to remain faithful in fulfilling the duties, the honesty, and the other big, noble words. But the truth of the matter is; in most cases they forget, or betray the trust, so the country would tumble downwards, in spite of the constitution, with its clearly written, just text, but injustice would soon prevail in the country….
And the constitution would become only ink on paper…….
Where is the fault in the matter?
**********************************
When the Monarchial rule in Iraq fell, and the republican rule started in 1958, a new, temporary constitution was issued in the country, a lot shorter than before, but it defined the identity of Iraq clearly; that Iraq is a part of the Arab Homeland, that the official religion is Islam, without harming the rights of any of the other religions, that the country is shared by Arabs and Kurds as major ethnics, and the rights of all are guaranteed by the constitution, naming those rights as the personal rights, religions, private property, the right of thought and belief, but spoke nothing of the press rights, Parties, or unions… the constitution stated that all citizens are equal in the constitution, without differences because of a religion, a creed, or an ethnic.
Of course, it was a military coup, and the authority of things went to the Army and military men, and those knew nothing but to issue orders or obey orders, so, how do we expect them to understand civilian life, the methods of ruling, the Parliament, the constitution, the law, and all those details? Anyway, that period of ruling was full of clashes and conflicts between Communists, nationalists, and the military, and between the government and the Kurds, who were demanding a self rule…
The conflicts ended tragically, for that revolution truly ate her sons, and most of them, if not all, were killed or executed…there was a whirlpool, or a grinder of killings that went on for years, in which the sound of logic was lost, while violence, hate, stubbornness, narrow-mindedness, and accusing the other prevailed…. And so on…
Meaning- that the miserable constitution didn't change a thing in the torn reality, which was ruled by the narrow, selfish interests…..
In my opinion, the reason of that failure is that the mentalities of those who came to rule were not much different from that of those who left, in matters of selfishness, self-love, and private interests….
The government fell; a new coup came on, with old and new faces, and a new temporary constitution was drafted…
The 1963 temporary constitution spoke only of the jurisdictions of the National Revolution Command Council, and spoke nothing about the identity of the country or the citizen's rights….and of course, the authority was in the hands of the army…
In 1964 a new temporary constitution was drafted, with a wider scope for all details; the country's identity, the citizen's rights, and the legislative, judiciary, and executive authority's jurisdictions…..
The country's identity was very clearly defined; that Iraq is a Muslim, Arabic country, a part of the Arab Homeland, and shall work to achieve the Arabic Unity with the rest of the Arabic counties, that the Arabic Language is the official language, and the Iraqi people are a part of the Arab Nation… by that time some new expressions entered the constitution, like; The ruling system is based upon Democracy and Socialism, and- The state pledges to enhance economy and achieve social justice… -The state is responsible for the National Economy, and laying the plans to develop it, and the Capital is at the service of the National Economy… - The country's wealthes and their investment shall be within the state's authority. The Agricultural lands ownership was limited to prevent feudalism from forming again, with all its injustice and exploitation.
Then, the constitution listed the citizen's rights; personal freedom, religious freedom, free opinion expression freedom, the freedom to join or establish unions and societies… the citizen's right to work, move, and live wherever he wished, the state to guarantee free education, medical care, social insurance, and medical insurance for all citizens, appointing the working hours and the wages so no injustice would befall the people…
The citizens are equal in front of the law, and have the right to vote…
And there was a special item about the Kurd citizens admitting their national rights in a brotherly national union.
Then comes the items about the jurisdictions of the three authorities, then about the Army, as being under the authority of the state only.
In my opinion, this was the best constitution, or the best beginning of a true Iraqi constitution, which was quite clear in defining the state's responsibilities, and explaining her duties in taking care of her citizens, and providing a good life for them… but the political conflicts, and the desire to take over the power from other parties didn't give enough time so the Iraqis would reap its positive fruits…
And so, the 1968 coup happened, the Ba'athists came to power, who were a major factor in the past conflicts with the former governments...
And a new temporary constitution appeared, in 1968. Its preface was like this:
"IN THE NAME OF GOD, THE GRATIOUS, THE MERCIFUL"
(Through the belief in the people's right to a free, good life, in the trust of the people's ability to confront difficulties, the people's invincible will, and after the reliance on GOD, and the honest from our people and the armed forces, a faithful bunch of our people, who believe in their GOD and the nation's goals [……..] We took over the reins of power in order to ensure the supremacy of law, create equal opportunities for citizens, work to achieve the national union, eliminate the reasons of internal rends, free the citizen from fear, ignorance, from ethnic, sectarian, and tribal feuds, and all the expressions of slavery, to build a society prevailed by brotherhood, love, harmony, and the feelings of responsibility [……] by providing the democratic life to citizens through public organizations, up to a national council representing all the people's sectors….).
And most of its later items were quoted from the former constitution….
Then, in 1970, there was an amendment giving the Kurds self rule…to enjoy their national rights and their Kurdish language in the self-rule areas…and keeping the relation with the central government in Baghdad….
Then, came the last draft of an Iraqi constitution in 1990, which was supposed to be put to public voting, but the Kuwait war and all that followed of mishaps hindered the project….
And now, as I read the constitutions of the Saddam era, I wonder: What have we seen of all those lovely items? Everything that took place on the ground of reality was an exact opposite of the preface in the 1968 constitution. With the passage of time we saw that: there was no supremacy of law, no freedom to the citizens, and no rights, no equality in life's opportunities, and no participation of the people in whatever decision….. There was no independent legislative authority, or a judiciary authority, and not even an executive authority, all were seized by one man….and all the jurisdictions came to rest in his hands…..
He used the army, the security forces, and the intelligence as a tyrannical power in his hands against the people, and thus everything was deformed, and distorted; the media, the journalism, the literature, the societies, and the unions, all became disfigured creatures………
And the freedoms shrank, and shrank, and so did dignity, rights, and justice…
In 1968 the beginning was really good, we felt that Iraq was living a new era of building and growth, Saddam Hussein was then the second man in power, the first man being Ahmed Hassan Al-Baker, whom I do not think left a bad memory in the Iraqi's hearts; he didn't fill the streets with his pictures, nor fill the newspapers, the magazines, and the TVs with his portraits, or with songs and poems singing his praise. The man was modest. The Ba'ath Party was stretching its domain everywhere, driving people to join it, and in spite of all attempts from my brothers or colleagues in collage, I refused to join, and I suppose more than 90% of the students in collages, (boys and girls) joined the Party, considering it the ruling authority, so, they should get an advantage… of course, that was an opportunist mentality, but it is present, every time, everywhere….. And so did many people, state officials, and others…….
And so, gradually, the power was seized by a single party, then the clashes with the other Parties, and eliminating them, even though the preface letter of the constitution mentioned the National Unity, which means admitting the presence of other Parties…
And after all that happened, in my opinion, the Ba'ath Party isn't bad, or racist, or aggressive… it has founding members with clean names, and unsuspected nationality, but unfortunately, a tyrant leader like Saddam Hussein destroyed the Party, and harmed it a lot, ousting or eliminating a lot of his colleagues who opposed him and his aggressive policies….
I feel sorry when I see a paragraph in the new constitution banning the existing of this Party or joining it, considering it a Saddamist Party. The story isn't logical, and the Party's reputation was tarnished by the behavior of Saddam Hussein, but it is a national, patriotic Party, comprising many honest, principle-bearing people, but as usual, the bad people are the ones who float on the front…..
**************************************
When the new Iraqi leaderships sat down to supervise the constitution draft, now, in 2005, I imagine they wanted to form items that would guarantee the mistakes of the past wouldn't be repeated… but they fell into funny details that inflamed the people's anger, as well as the spirit of fanaticism, racism, and the "I" spirit…
In all the former Iraqi constitutions, the other religions were mentioned without details, and the other ethnics besides the Arabic and the Kurdish without details, the important thing is that they are all equals in rights, without any differences among them…
But today, the other sects complained to the media that their names weren't mentioned, because the constitution listed some and forgot the others: the Baptists, the Yazidies, the Assyerians, the Kildans, the Turkmen, the Athurians… a Kurdish sect came on to say they are Shia'ats-Kurds, called the Philliees, and demanded their rights…
Of the former, there is a sect that worships the devil, and they too demand their rights…
I do not know what rights those sects are demanding?
Didn't they live with us, and enjoyed the rights of their religions and rituals, without the hampering of anyone?
Is belonging to the big homeland a shame, and a drawback?
Or is the narrow relation a pride, and a heroic deed?
Does that mean if there was an Iraqi singer, or writer, or a poet, then we discovered he was a Baptists, or an Assyerians, a Kurd, or a Turkmen, would that have made less of him? On the contrary, we should feel he was nearer to everyone, belonging to everyone, and speaking by the name, feelings, and the worries of everyone… and in the end, he should be the winner…he would become a national symbol for all.
Wouldn't he be in a better position than someone else who writes in his local language, in his local newspaper, read by his sect only? Even his knowledge and perceptions will expand if he spoke with all the people of Iraq as a whole…. And his perceptions will get narrower if he limited his thinking to his sect, as the only window he is proud of, through which he sees the world…..
*******************************
Then, there are some websites on the Internet that speaks about the Iraqi Communist Party in Sweden, and its opinion against putting the word "Islam" or "Sharia" (=Islamic Law) in the constitution….
Well then, the constitution doesn't force people to be Muslims, but the majority is Muslims, so, what is the infuriating matter? And there are items talking about the freedom of religion, thought, and belief… those are for the non-Muslims, is that an injustice?
I do not know…but everyone is interfering in the drafting of the new constitution, to omit and add, thinking that they will achieve democracy and justice that way……
In the new constitution there is an evasion from defining the identity of Iraq…as if being an Arabic Muslim country became an accusation….
In the constitution, the Arabic and Kurdish languages were both named as official languages, to satisfy the Kurds, which is an exaggeration for political purposes only…
What is the percentage of those speaking Kurdish?
20%, at best, well then, what right have they in sharing with the remaining 80% in this point?
Is this justice?
Moreover, the Kurdish language is a limited, local language, and not an international, world-wide spread language, so, how can it be adopted as an official state language? And how many interpreters shall we need in conferences and meetings?
In the constitution, there is an item about banning the prospect of the presence of foreign forces or foreign military bases in Iraq, but it would be allowed, in the event of the Iraqi National Council's consent….
By GOD, I smiled as I remembered the stories of Miss Bell with the miserable Iraqi Parliament then, and how the Iraqi-British Treaty was approved, in spite of the people's rejection….
Then, there are many items in the constitution about Federalism, the regional Councils and their jurisdictions… and those took up the biggest space in the new constitution, as if it is a pre-resolved subject; the Iraqis approval of Federalism, and the silly sectarian and ethnic divisions…..
The question is: What is democracy??
Is it putting badges on our chests, and dividing ourselves into quarreling groups, each demanding its advantage??
This is a method full of naivety, stupidness, and a way to shred and divide the country…
This isn't democracy; this is the mentality of middle-ages tribes….
******************************************
I think democracy is the relation between the ruler and the people…..Through which justice is achieved, and peace prevails in society..........
This is the important point that deserves deep research and debate now, to achieve it on the ground of reality in the new Iraq….
There is an item I liked in the new constitution, and a lot more like it should be phrased, so we could go over the mishaps that happened to us, and they wouldn't be repeated again…
The phrase says: The Army should not be turned into a tool to repress the people.
Excellent!
A lot more phrases like that one should have been written, to curb the jurisdictions of the ruling power, so they wouldn't end up like the one before, for example:
No security forces and intelligence should be formed to chase the Iraqis, and embitter their private lives.
People shouldn't be put in prisons, or tortured in any way…
No class of rich, powerful people, who seize the country's fortunes, of the ruling class, their relatives and friends should be allowed to form…
The government positions shouldn't be confined to the ruling class sons, their relatives and friends…
No Parties or militias should be allowed to form by the sons and relatives of the ruling class…
No jurisdictions should be given to the President or the Prime minister that would enable him to take decisions singularly…
The Parliament should always be watched and questioned by public committees, so it would always truly express the people's will, and wouldn't turn into an opportunist bunch who thinks only of its own interests……
No governmental character should be glorified..........
The pictures of the President, the Prime minister, or any other character in the government shouldn't be hanged in the streets, schools, or official offices to intimidate people, like – Big Brother is watching you, (in the 1984 novel).
There shouldn't be any applauding to the President or any other character in the government when they make a speech…
No poems should be made, nor songs to be broadcasted, that would sing the praise and adulate the President or the government…
No cheering should be allowed in the streets, by petty, adulating words like: By our souls, by our blood, we sacrifice ourselves for you… "Oh, somebody…", for these are ugly acts that create the dictator…
Do not say that Saddam Hussein was the only guilty one…. All those fools who carried out these acts helped him to become an arrogant dictator, who destroyed himself, his people, and his country, then brought on an ugly, hateful occupation, who wants to suck the Iraqi's blood, and the fortunes of their lands, while playing the Mother Hen role…..
When Britain came on to play the Mother Hen role in Iraq after WW1, ignorance, illiteracy, and poverty used to envelop Iraq ….. Nevertheless, the Iraqis resisted the imperialism policy…
And now, how many PhD's, Masters, and Bachelor degree's holders in Iraq?
How many schools, institutes, and colleges there are?
And how much lessons people learned, from the stories of their fathers and grandfathers, about the betrayal of the occupiers and the imperialists, and how they can never be true Mother Hens….
So, is there a chance to trick the Iraqis now, and impose a crippled constitution upon them?
The Iraqis are patient…but when they decide to announce their anger… woe unto the poor devil that stands in their face…..
****************************
Iraq and its people is in need of new leaders….not just new names and faces… but new minds, who own a ruling philosophy that is based upon respecting the people's freedom and rights, acting in a modest, honest, and transparent way with the state affairs, that would make them a good example, working to provide a good life for people, enlightening their minds by the love of the other, and by accepting him and his right to live, without violence, hatred, or incrimination, without putting programmed disparities, ethnic and sectarian, that would divide, not bind….disparities that would plant susceptibility and hatred in the spirits, instead of love and harmony….
The Iraqis are in need of someone to collect their shards, drawing them nearer, making them love each other… so they could live in peace….
I know it is a difficult matter, and a big challenge….but it contains a seed of hope for a new life, for people in Iraq are very much tired, and a lot of the tyrannical, retarded ruling ways must be changed, ways that talk a lot, making a fuss, lying, but do nothing positive on the ground of reality……
Otherwise, the fate of the new leaders won't be better than that of the former Iraqi governments, for each reaps what his hands has sown….
And then, would someone say: those Iraqis are troublesome people, who like nobody, and their history is full of revolutions?
By GOD, I have read their history, and seen injustice heaped upon them in all ages; at the time of the Umayyads, the Abbasids, the Ottomans, the British, then, by the Iraqi tyrannical national governments, who didn't have a mature vision to the ways to rule, so, they used the army to enforce themselves, and vanquish the people in most cases…… and that is the reason of the many revolutions, and the lack of political stability in Iraq…
I wish there would be new leaderships who learned the lessons and the examples of the past experiences… leaderships who would lead Iraq and its people towards a true, shining future… full of justice, security, and peace…
And in my mind, the sad question persists: when will those leaders come along?
I do not know…
Maybe in a year, or five, or more…
But I still have the hope, that they will come one day….some time ahead…
***********************************
Translated by May/Baghdad.
Good morning…
The month of Ramadan has started, it is the month of Fasting, Mercy, and Forgiveness…
And we are away from home…
This is our first Ramadan outside of Iraq since 15 years…
It saddens my heart that millions of Iraqis left Iraq after the war, looking for sanctuaries in Arabic and non-Arabic countries…
I wish we can all agree on one prayer: that peace and security should return to Iraq, and we could return to our homes before the next Ramadan…
Amen…
And I pray for all people uprooted from their homelands, first of them being the Palestinian people, to go back home, and for peace and justice to reign in their countries…
Amen…
********************************
I spent the days of the last week reading books about the Authority and the Opposition in the history of Islam. Then I looked through different Internet sites the talk about the new Iraqi Constitution, and the former Iraqi Constitutions…
I enjoyed reading them all, in spite of getting a headache from too much staring at the screen, but that didn't stop me from moving on to have a knowledge about this important topic… where the debate continues, and the discussions are heated, about the new Iraqi Constitution…
***********************************
I discovered that there were many constitutions in Iraq, the first of which being the one written at the Ottoman Era, in 1876, which was applied for a short period, then frozen for some time, then re-applied in 1908… I read its paragraphs and found them reasonable; they spoke of the individual's freedom and protecting his dignity, he had the right to express his opinion, join Societies or Parties, there was the freedom of the press and expression, it was declared illegal to torture people during interrogation, and some other items all within the human rights we are talking about, which means they were well aware of it, recognize its importance, so they put it in the wordings of the constitution…
But the question remains: How much of it was implemented? Didn't the Iraqis suffer the shortage of freedom and expression; didn't they suffer from torture, prisons, and the executions of nationalists who were against the Ottoman state? Didn't people suffer from injustice, the poor distribution of fortunes and posts, in spite of the presence of some items stating that all citizens are equal, in all fields of life?
mmmm…
Where is the flaw, then?
********************************************
I thought a lot after I read some books about the Islamic history, and the Philosophy of ruling… I found that the Ottoman state wasn't an expression of the Islamic state, or its philosophy of ruling… in spite of the constitution saying that the formal religion of the state is Islam…
The real Islamic state had a short and limited experience in history, for it started with the ear of the Prophet Muhammad (May the prayers of GOD be upon him, and His Peace), who was followed then by the four Rashideen Caliphs who, in spite of all the problems that rose, were trying to follow the path of the Prophet (prayers and Peace be upon him), in the simplicity of dealing with people, listening to their problems, in not being proud, or asking people to worship them, by not surrounding themselves with luxury, the signs of richness, or haughtiness, by appointing officials in the far-off towns to manage the state affairs, and questioning them every now and then, and if signs of sudden richness appeared suddenly upon them, they would be brought, and asked: How did you acquire this?
The rulers used to implement the saying of the Prophet (prayers and Peace be upon him): "You are all shepherds, and all are responsible for your herds…" The Caliphs were obsessed with the idea of faithfulness to the Muslim's money and their souls, and how to protect them, and what they shall say to GOD on the Day of Judgment, if there was a complaint against them from a Muslim, or an accusation of slackness…
While the ethics of the Persian kings in Iran before Islam and the Romans in Europe was to glorify the king, surrounding him with exaltation rituals as if he were a god….and he used to be surrounded by slaves, bondmaids, silver, gold, and adulating ministers…..
These expressions were quoted by the Caliphs of the Umayyad and the Abbasid states, and then by the Sultans of the Ottoman state… these aren't Islamic ruling philosophies, even though it was claimed to be thus.
****************************
After that I completed reading the Iraqi constitution during the British Imperialism and the Monarchial rule, which was issued in 1925. I looked at its text, which was also respectable, talking about the rights of citizens, their dignity and freedom, the legislative, judiciary, and executive authorities, the king's and the Parliament's (the nation's council) jurisdictions, whose members are elected, and some other details, all of which are nice, giving the impression that everything is going to be all right, and that the people aren't going to face any problems…
But when you read the history of the people then, how much injustice they had to endure, the bad distribution of wealthes, shutting down the newspapers and canceling the Parties every now and then, as if the whole matter was going on according to the moods of the faction holding the power…. Then you make the deduction that the supervisors of the constitution didn't realize on the ground what was written in it…..
I was amazed by two bits of information about the 1925 constitution, or the related issues:
- First, that the Parliament was terminated after interferences from the British Colonies Ministry, and how that ministry changed many a text so as to conform to their interests… and all that wasn't announced for 8 months, until the Iraqi oil investment treaty was signed secretly with Britain, or some other western companies, why?
So it wouldn't be published at first in the official governmental documentary newspaper, and thus turning into a treaty that must be discussed by the Parliament, and then decide to agree or reject it….
So, the treaty was signed, then the constitution was published six days later, as if the former had no relation to the later, meaning; it was signed before the official recognition of the constitution, so it is a reality that shouldn't be discussed…
The second note I found in Miss Bell's diaries, on the year 1924, in which she says: "… I have to tell you that his Majesty the King has found out the secret about running the Parliamentary councils, it is really very simple; all you have to do is call upon some of the prominent personalities among the representatives, to tell them that a certain issue or procedure is going to be put forward tomorrow or the day after, and that you wish them to present some petitions before the appointed date, in which they declare their wish to approve that certain issue, after that, the head of the council would declare during the calling for the representatives to vote about that issue, that the approval of majority of members was declared, through written petitions handed over to him concerning that matter, and that would be that….".
Now, I look sadly, in amazement as I read all this…wondering about its meaning? Is this the western democracy they always brag about, as being the best way to rule, that is worthy of leading the new world order…..?
So, when I read the transgressions committed by Britain when in Iraq, in spite of the presence of all the bases of the western ruling order; An elected Parliament, a constitution, legislative, judiciary, and executive authorities, each with its authorities specified in the constitution…. Nevertheless, there was deception, and forging of the people's will, and those who were elected soon forget their oaths, in which they have sworn to remain to remain faithful in fulfilling the duties, the honesty, and the other big, noble words. But the truth of the matter is; in most cases they forget, or betray the trust, so the country would tumble downwards, in spite of the constitution, with its clearly written, just text, but injustice would soon prevail in the country….
And the constitution would become only ink on paper…….
Where is the fault in the matter?
**********************************
When the Monarchial rule in Iraq fell, and the republican rule started in 1958, a new, temporary constitution was issued in the country, a lot shorter than before, but it defined the identity of Iraq clearly; that Iraq is a part of the Arab Homeland, that the official religion is Islam, without harming the rights of any of the other religions, that the country is shared by Arabs and Kurds as major ethnics, and the rights of all are guaranteed by the constitution, naming those rights as the personal rights, religions, private property, the right of thought and belief, but spoke nothing of the press rights, Parties, or unions… the constitution stated that all citizens are equal in the constitution, without differences because of a religion, a creed, or an ethnic.
Of course, it was a military coup, and the authority of things went to the Army and military men, and those knew nothing but to issue orders or obey orders, so, how do we expect them to understand civilian life, the methods of ruling, the Parliament, the constitution, the law, and all those details? Anyway, that period of ruling was full of clashes and conflicts between Communists, nationalists, and the military, and between the government and the Kurds, who were demanding a self rule…
The conflicts ended tragically, for that revolution truly ate her sons, and most of them, if not all, were killed or executed…there was a whirlpool, or a grinder of killings that went on for years, in which the sound of logic was lost, while violence, hate, stubbornness, narrow-mindedness, and accusing the other prevailed…. And so on…
Meaning- that the miserable constitution didn't change a thing in the torn reality, which was ruled by the narrow, selfish interests…..
In my opinion, the reason of that failure is that the mentalities of those who came to rule were not much different from that of those who left, in matters of selfishness, self-love, and private interests….
The government fell; a new coup came on, with old and new faces, and a new temporary constitution was drafted…
The 1963 temporary constitution spoke only of the jurisdictions of the National Revolution Command Council, and spoke nothing about the identity of the country or the citizen's rights….and of course, the authority was in the hands of the army…
In 1964 a new temporary constitution was drafted, with a wider scope for all details; the country's identity, the citizen's rights, and the legislative, judiciary, and executive authority's jurisdictions…..
The country's identity was very clearly defined; that Iraq is a Muslim, Arabic country, a part of the Arab Homeland, and shall work to achieve the Arabic Unity with the rest of the Arabic counties, that the Arabic Language is the official language, and the Iraqi people are a part of the Arab Nation… by that time some new expressions entered the constitution, like; The ruling system is based upon Democracy and Socialism, and- The state pledges to enhance economy and achieve social justice… -The state is responsible for the National Economy, and laying the plans to develop it, and the Capital is at the service of the National Economy… - The country's wealthes and their investment shall be within the state's authority. The Agricultural lands ownership was limited to prevent feudalism from forming again, with all its injustice and exploitation.
Then, the constitution listed the citizen's rights; personal freedom, religious freedom, free opinion expression freedom, the freedom to join or establish unions and societies… the citizen's right to work, move, and live wherever he wished, the state to guarantee free education, medical care, social insurance, and medical insurance for all citizens, appointing the working hours and the wages so no injustice would befall the people…
The citizens are equal in front of the law, and have the right to vote…
And there was a special item about the Kurd citizens admitting their national rights in a brotherly national union.
Then comes the items about the jurisdictions of the three authorities, then about the Army, as being under the authority of the state only.
In my opinion, this was the best constitution, or the best beginning of a true Iraqi constitution, which was quite clear in defining the state's responsibilities, and explaining her duties in taking care of her citizens, and providing a good life for them… but the political conflicts, and the desire to take over the power from other parties didn't give enough time so the Iraqis would reap its positive fruits…
And so, the 1968 coup happened, the Ba'athists came to power, who were a major factor in the past conflicts with the former governments...
And a new temporary constitution appeared, in 1968. Its preface was like this:
"IN THE NAME OF GOD, THE GRATIOUS, THE MERCIFUL"
(Through the belief in the people's right to a free, good life, in the trust of the people's ability to confront difficulties, the people's invincible will, and after the reliance on GOD, and the honest from our people and the armed forces, a faithful bunch of our people, who believe in their GOD and the nation's goals [……..] We took over the reins of power in order to ensure the supremacy of law, create equal opportunities for citizens, work to achieve the national union, eliminate the reasons of internal rends, free the citizen from fear, ignorance, from ethnic, sectarian, and tribal feuds, and all the expressions of slavery, to build a society prevailed by brotherhood, love, harmony, and the feelings of responsibility [……] by providing the democratic life to citizens through public organizations, up to a national council representing all the people's sectors….).
And most of its later items were quoted from the former constitution….
Then, in 1970, there was an amendment giving the Kurds self rule…to enjoy their national rights and their Kurdish language in the self-rule areas…and keeping the relation with the central government in Baghdad….
Then, came the last draft of an Iraqi constitution in 1990, which was supposed to be put to public voting, but the Kuwait war and all that followed of mishaps hindered the project….
And now, as I read the constitutions of the Saddam era, I wonder: What have we seen of all those lovely items? Everything that took place on the ground of reality was an exact opposite of the preface in the 1968 constitution. With the passage of time we saw that: there was no supremacy of law, no freedom to the citizens, and no rights, no equality in life's opportunities, and no participation of the people in whatever decision….. There was no independent legislative authority, or a judiciary authority, and not even an executive authority, all were seized by one man….and all the jurisdictions came to rest in his hands…..
He used the army, the security forces, and the intelligence as a tyrannical power in his hands against the people, and thus everything was deformed, and distorted; the media, the journalism, the literature, the societies, and the unions, all became disfigured creatures………
And the freedoms shrank, and shrank, and so did dignity, rights, and justice…
In 1968 the beginning was really good, we felt that Iraq was living a new era of building and growth, Saddam Hussein was then the second man in power, the first man being Ahmed Hassan Al-Baker, whom I do not think left a bad memory in the Iraqi's hearts; he didn't fill the streets with his pictures, nor fill the newspapers, the magazines, and the TVs with his portraits, or with songs and poems singing his praise. The man was modest. The Ba'ath Party was stretching its domain everywhere, driving people to join it, and in spite of all attempts from my brothers or colleagues in collage, I refused to join, and I suppose more than 90% of the students in collages, (boys and girls) joined the Party, considering it the ruling authority, so, they should get an advantage… of course, that was an opportunist mentality, but it is present, every time, everywhere….. And so did many people, state officials, and others…….
And so, gradually, the power was seized by a single party, then the clashes with the other Parties, and eliminating them, even though the preface letter of the constitution mentioned the National Unity, which means admitting the presence of other Parties…
And after all that happened, in my opinion, the Ba'ath Party isn't bad, or racist, or aggressive… it has founding members with clean names, and unsuspected nationality, but unfortunately, a tyrant leader like Saddam Hussein destroyed the Party, and harmed it a lot, ousting or eliminating a lot of his colleagues who opposed him and his aggressive policies….
I feel sorry when I see a paragraph in the new constitution banning the existing of this Party or joining it, considering it a Saddamist Party. The story isn't logical, and the Party's reputation was tarnished by the behavior of Saddam Hussein, but it is a national, patriotic Party, comprising many honest, principle-bearing people, but as usual, the bad people are the ones who float on the front…..
**************************************
When the new Iraqi leaderships sat down to supervise the constitution draft, now, in 2005, I imagine they wanted to form items that would guarantee the mistakes of the past wouldn't be repeated… but they fell into funny details that inflamed the people's anger, as well as the spirit of fanaticism, racism, and the "I" spirit…
In all the former Iraqi constitutions, the other religions were mentioned without details, and the other ethnics besides the Arabic and the Kurdish without details, the important thing is that they are all equals in rights, without any differences among them…
But today, the other sects complained to the media that their names weren't mentioned, because the constitution listed some and forgot the others: the Baptists, the Yazidies, the Assyerians, the Kildans, the Turkmen, the Athurians… a Kurdish sect came on to say they are Shia'ats-Kurds, called the Philliees, and demanded their rights…
Of the former, there is a sect that worships the devil, and they too demand their rights…
I do not know what rights those sects are demanding?
Didn't they live with us, and enjoyed the rights of their religions and rituals, without the hampering of anyone?
Is belonging to the big homeland a shame, and a drawback?
Or is the narrow relation a pride, and a heroic deed?
Does that mean if there was an Iraqi singer, or writer, or a poet, then we discovered he was a Baptists, or an Assyerians, a Kurd, or a Turkmen, would that have made less of him? On the contrary, we should feel he was nearer to everyone, belonging to everyone, and speaking by the name, feelings, and the worries of everyone… and in the end, he should be the winner…he would become a national symbol for all.
Wouldn't he be in a better position than someone else who writes in his local language, in his local newspaper, read by his sect only? Even his knowledge and perceptions will expand if he spoke with all the people of Iraq as a whole…. And his perceptions will get narrower if he limited his thinking to his sect, as the only window he is proud of, through which he sees the world…..
*******************************
Then, there are some websites on the Internet that speaks about the Iraqi Communist Party in Sweden, and its opinion against putting the word "Islam" or "Sharia" (=Islamic Law) in the constitution….
Well then, the constitution doesn't force people to be Muslims, but the majority is Muslims, so, what is the infuriating matter? And there are items talking about the freedom of religion, thought, and belief… those are for the non-Muslims, is that an injustice?
I do not know…but everyone is interfering in the drafting of the new constitution, to omit and add, thinking that they will achieve democracy and justice that way……
In the new constitution there is an evasion from defining the identity of Iraq…as if being an Arabic Muslim country became an accusation….
In the constitution, the Arabic and Kurdish languages were both named as official languages, to satisfy the Kurds, which is an exaggeration for political purposes only…
What is the percentage of those speaking Kurdish?
20%, at best, well then, what right have they in sharing with the remaining 80% in this point?
Is this justice?
Moreover, the Kurdish language is a limited, local language, and not an international, world-wide spread language, so, how can it be adopted as an official state language? And how many interpreters shall we need in conferences and meetings?
In the constitution, there is an item about banning the prospect of the presence of foreign forces or foreign military bases in Iraq, but it would be allowed, in the event of the Iraqi National Council's consent….
By GOD, I smiled as I remembered the stories of Miss Bell with the miserable Iraqi Parliament then, and how the Iraqi-British Treaty was approved, in spite of the people's rejection….
Then, there are many items in the constitution about Federalism, the regional Councils and their jurisdictions… and those took up the biggest space in the new constitution, as if it is a pre-resolved subject; the Iraqis approval of Federalism, and the silly sectarian and ethnic divisions…..
The question is: What is democracy??
Is it putting badges on our chests, and dividing ourselves into quarreling groups, each demanding its advantage??
This is a method full of naivety, stupidness, and a way to shred and divide the country…
This isn't democracy; this is the mentality of middle-ages tribes….
******************************************
I think democracy is the relation between the ruler and the people…..Through which justice is achieved, and peace prevails in society..........
This is the important point that deserves deep research and debate now, to achieve it on the ground of reality in the new Iraq….
There is an item I liked in the new constitution, and a lot more like it should be phrased, so we could go over the mishaps that happened to us, and they wouldn't be repeated again…
The phrase says: The Army should not be turned into a tool to repress the people.
Excellent!
A lot more phrases like that one should have been written, to curb the jurisdictions of the ruling power, so they wouldn't end up like the one before, for example:
No security forces and intelligence should be formed to chase the Iraqis, and embitter their private lives.
People shouldn't be put in prisons, or tortured in any way…
No class of rich, powerful people, who seize the country's fortunes, of the ruling class, their relatives and friends should be allowed to form…
The government positions shouldn't be confined to the ruling class sons, their relatives and friends…
No Parties or militias should be allowed to form by the sons and relatives of the ruling class…
No jurisdictions should be given to the President or the Prime minister that would enable him to take decisions singularly…
The Parliament should always be watched and questioned by public committees, so it would always truly express the people's will, and wouldn't turn into an opportunist bunch who thinks only of its own interests……
No governmental character should be glorified..........
The pictures of the President, the Prime minister, or any other character in the government shouldn't be hanged in the streets, schools, or official offices to intimidate people, like – Big Brother is watching you, (in the 1984 novel).
There shouldn't be any applauding to the President or any other character in the government when they make a speech…
No poems should be made, nor songs to be broadcasted, that would sing the praise and adulate the President or the government…
No cheering should be allowed in the streets, by petty, adulating words like: By our souls, by our blood, we sacrifice ourselves for you… "Oh, somebody…", for these are ugly acts that create the dictator…
Do not say that Saddam Hussein was the only guilty one…. All those fools who carried out these acts helped him to become an arrogant dictator, who destroyed himself, his people, and his country, then brought on an ugly, hateful occupation, who wants to suck the Iraqi's blood, and the fortunes of their lands, while playing the Mother Hen role…..
When Britain came on to play the Mother Hen role in Iraq after WW1, ignorance, illiteracy, and poverty used to envelop Iraq ….. Nevertheless, the Iraqis resisted the imperialism policy…
And now, how many PhD's, Masters, and Bachelor degree's holders in Iraq?
How many schools, institutes, and colleges there are?
And how much lessons people learned, from the stories of their fathers and grandfathers, about the betrayal of the occupiers and the imperialists, and how they can never be true Mother Hens….
So, is there a chance to trick the Iraqis now, and impose a crippled constitution upon them?
The Iraqis are patient…but when they decide to announce their anger… woe unto the poor devil that stands in their face…..
****************************
Iraq and its people is in need of new leaders….not just new names and faces… but new minds, who own a ruling philosophy that is based upon respecting the people's freedom and rights, acting in a modest, honest, and transparent way with the state affairs, that would make them a good example, working to provide a good life for people, enlightening their minds by the love of the other, and by accepting him and his right to live, without violence, hatred, or incrimination, without putting programmed disparities, ethnic and sectarian, that would divide, not bind….disparities that would plant susceptibility and hatred in the spirits, instead of love and harmony….
The Iraqis are in need of someone to collect their shards, drawing them nearer, making them love each other… so they could live in peace….
I know it is a difficult matter, and a big challenge….but it contains a seed of hope for a new life, for people in Iraq are very much tired, and a lot of the tyrannical, retarded ruling ways must be changed, ways that talk a lot, making a fuss, lying, but do nothing positive on the ground of reality……
Otherwise, the fate of the new leaders won't be better than that of the former Iraqi governments, for each reaps what his hands has sown….
And then, would someone say: those Iraqis are troublesome people, who like nobody, and their history is full of revolutions?
By GOD, I have read their history, and seen injustice heaped upon them in all ages; at the time of the Umayyads, the Abbasids, the Ottomans, the British, then, by the Iraqi tyrannical national governments, who didn't have a mature vision to the ways to rule, so, they used the army to enforce themselves, and vanquish the people in most cases…… and that is the reason of the many revolutions, and the lack of political stability in Iraq…
I wish there would be new leaderships who learned the lessons and the examples of the past experiences… leaderships who would lead Iraq and its people towards a true, shining future… full of justice, security, and peace…
And in my mind, the sad question persists: when will those leaders come along?
I do not know…
Maybe in a year, or five, or more…
But I still have the hope, that they will come one day….some time ahead…
***********************************
Translated by May/Baghdad.
# posted by Faiza Al-Araji @ 10:05 pm 
