26 May 2004 - The Double Bluff
From the outset the idea that arch Zionists were out to bring democracy to Iraq and the middle east via US imperialism (PNAC) stank to high heaven. (See Who Wants Democracy Anyway?) Now it is time to get ready for the false solution to present itself: Iraq is such a mess we were fools to ever think that we could bring democracy to these people. They only understand violence. We already see the champions of Islamophobia racing to these conclusions (See Daniel Pipes piece Bringing democracy to Iraq beyond reach of US)
This is of course nonsense. It doesn't take much to do the right thing and appoint a genuinely representative interim government. It doesn't take much to find out what the people of Iraq want and act on it. But this has not happened. Why? Why when 90% of Iraqis want the US army out of there is the US government so confident that the appointed government won't ask them to leave? But these points are not surprising. The whole episode is characterised by such doublespeak and lies, it is hard to be surprised by the latest form. The basic principle of democratic life is to agree with the principle of exchanging the bullet for the ballot. This principle is perfectly compatible with Islam where the decisions of the community should be reached by mutual consultation (amruhum shurah bainahum) And how was this wonderful principle demonstrated by the USA? By breaking international law and starting a war!
The biggest flashing neon sign though declaring this double bluff was the fact that for a long time the policy of the USA (under strong pressure from pro Israel lobbies) in regards to the Arab / Muslim world was anything but demanding democracy. This is still the case in many places. When democracy starts to show its head in the Muslim world the USA gets nervous. The Zionist Islamophobes have demonised Islam to such an extent that many leading figures in the USA fear we will end up with a dreaded Islamic state. Take the case of Algeria for example. It was turned over to the most ruthless army generals who cancelled the first real democratic elections after the Islamic party (FIS) got elected by an overwhelming majority of the people. This replacement of democracy with brutal dictatorship caused no howls of protest from the US but rather piles of IMF money for the despotic new regime. Saddam himself was installed with the help of the CIA. It has to be said that this proclivity for supporting despots is not confined to the Muslim world. It covers all countries that US policy wishes to keep as client states; weak to the point of dependency.
So what do we do to stop this double bluff? We need to show that democracy can work in Iraq despite the dynamics of failure already set into motion. We need to get the various parties in Iraq agreeing to work together and not to have some factions off fighting on their own. If the US is unwilling to mediate this process and get all these parties talking to one another to form a consensus on the future of the country, then it is up to respected people in Iraq themselves to take initiative and through arbitrating between all the parties produce a clear united voice for the Iraqi people that can challenge the appointed government with the evident weight of the people of Iraq behind them and thus become the government in waiting.
One way to proceed may be to have the various parties agree to a collective arbitration via a simple representative process: Pick 100 people at random from the ration lists which are themselves a clear record of the population. These 100 people can then draw up a constitution which each and every one of the 100 must agree to. Such a constitution will set out laws that cannot be changed except by such a similar consensus and is the basic mechanism to guarantee the rights of all individuals and minorities over and above the will of the majority. Part of this constitution can then be a determination of how leaders are selected from the population who are only allowed to rule within the limits of the constitution. Perhaps it can be done by a simple majority of these 100 people selecting someone.
This consensus building is the real challenge. We must all do our best to make it happen.