25 August 2002 - Regime Change

Why is it that when news came out recently that the US wanted to see a democracy in Iraq that this was hailed as an important news story? The reason is well known by practically all observers of the region: The US has historically opposed the spread of any real democracy among the Arab and Muslim states of the region. Why? Because the main opposition political forces in most of the Muslim world derive their support mainly from aiming to implement a more Islamic system of government. Why is this a problem? Because it would represent both a coherent cultural challenge and a direct economic (and potentially military) challenge to US hegemony.

There are countless examples of ways in which the US has been acting directly against the democratic will of the people of the region. Other regions have their problems but this one is singled out for special policies because of what? Because, Islam is seen as a threat.

Israel serves the function of a bridgehead and a mercenary army. Although it may be quite possible for Muslims to be at peace with Jews - indeed there are many precedents in history - , there are strong forces doing whatever they can to keep the whole region on the edge of war, or at war.

Without clear leadership that is able to distance itself from these war mongers, the US will never be trusted to put their man in charge, whatever democratic process is promised. The US supports too many undemocratic regimes in the region. If the US policy is to support democracy, then it should be pushing for regime change in many countries the Middle East.

Democracy, however, needs to be sold to Muslims who hold that it is not the people who are sovereign but God.  In Islam no king or dictator is sovereign, no people are sovereign, no nation is sovereign, only God is sovereign. So, we have to move away from such ideas when we talk about "Islamic democracy". Instead of talking about sovereignty, we should simply discuss 'authority'. In this context a Muslim's obligation is just to do whatever they can to right the wrongs they see according to whatever authority they have. This allows for agreement to be forged based on a constitutional framework through which some authority can be transferred to different people in a way that is both peaceful and transparently fair. It is this peaceful transfer of authority which is democracy's greatest virtue. It is also entirely consistent with Islamic ideals where people should organise their affairs by mutual consultation.

Reaching agreement on what kind of government should replace Iraq's current regime is a crucial part of credible US policy. To do so requires extensive mutual consultation with all interested parties. However, now that this is starting to happen we have an intriguing effect:

Now that democracy for Iraq has been promised as the result of 'regime change', many people regarded as hawks are suddenly becoming doves! It seems that those closest to Bush senior, including such people as Henry Kissinger, are now calling for leaving Saddam in place. They say that 'regime change' in Iraq would be "destabilising".

Of course, what they mean to say is "If we cannot put in place our puppet ruler, obedient to the US rather than the people of Iraq, then we shouldn't be going in".

I am sure the people of Iraq would welcome a "regime change" as would many peoples in many countries where the governments don't act in the people's interests. The problem is that practically no one trusts the US to do so.

Until these problems of policy are resolved in favour of justice rather that the narrow understanding of US interest based around immediate profits for big US businesses, then these military adventures are bound to only store up more problems for the US in the long term.