• Friday, 29 March 2024
logo

Federalism and Democracy Are Not Growing in Iraq's Sandy Land

Gulan Media November 15, 2011 Reports
Federalism and Democracy Are Not Growing in Iraq's Sandy Land
How does a democratic region conform into a centralized government?
Andreas Wimmer, California University to Gulan Magazine:
"Through American foreign policy perspective, the success of Iraqi democratization process is the utmost important task. But the growth of the democratic seed in the Iraqi's Sandy Land isn’t easy. The bad situation in Iraq has led some to say that the American administration has fallen into its trap of committing to its own words. But in reality there are two problems that have become serious impediments in front of Iraq's democracy process. First, not all of the major powerful parties in Iraq want a Western model democracy, not because Islam and democracy cannot exist together, but because these political powers are dominant. For instance those forces are now dominant in the Shiites. Historically they don't like a secular political system that practically contains the division of power. These forces only pays importance to the elections outcome, so as the outcome becomes a political umbrella and pressure for them. The second problem is that even if all the Iraqis admire democracy, democracy in Iraq won't be successful, since those political problems that arise from the democratization process do not have the abilities to solve those problems. Therefore, before talking about what should be done, or what institutions is good to be established and keeping ourselves away from problems, it will be very helpful if on a general level we ask, why in Iraq ethnical and religious democratic problems are aroused?"
Albert Venn Dicey, the famous British jurist and constitutional theorist, about federalism says: "A federal state requires for its formations two conditions:
1) There must exists, in the first place, a body of countries such as the Cantons of Switzerland, the Colonies of America, or the Provinces of Canada, so closely connected by locality, by history, by race, or the like, as to be capable of bearing, in the eyes of their inhabitants, an impress of common nationality.
2) A second condition absolutely essential to the founding of a federal system is the existence of a very peculiar state of sentiment among the inhabitants of the countries which is it proposed to unite. They must desire union and must not desire unity." (1885: 136-137)

This indication of Dicey, if easily explaining it, remember us the Kurdish proverb "Chapla be yak dast le nadret" (literally translating into clapping cannot be made by one hand, meaning that some work cannot be done in one). For the success of federalism, Dicey has separated both terms of union and commonality from unity. This means that two or more nations can become each other's partner and assistant and create a union like the European Union. But the identity of a nation, with the intention of making all the different people and ethnicities into one nation under the pretext of unity, cannot be allowed to melt. He informs us that consented coexistence within a federal state is cooperation and partnership and not oneness, as it is currently being understood by Iraq's Arab political dictionary. They see Iraq as one and not as a federal country. We in Kurdistan Region look at the Iraqi future in two different perspectives:
1- The perspective of Kurdistan Region to the future of Iraq is to have a federal democratic Iraq where both Kurds and Arabs willingly decided to establish an Iraqi Union.
2- Iraqi government's perspective which reflects the majority of Iraqi Arabs, want to preserve the Iraqi country unity at any price and by any way, and the Kurdish people be part of the Iraqi nation, meanwhile Iraq be part of the Arab nation. Looking into details of the Iraqi prime minister main political discourses, one can feel that it emphasizes so many times on unity, he rarely does on federalism. This means that the Iraqi Arab politicians thinking is based on making the Kurdish people part of the Iraqi nation which ultimately means being part of the Arab nation. This can be clearly seen in the political speeches of all the Arab political forces that use only the Iraqi nation instead of Iraqi nations. When searching in Google the words Iraqi nations, very few articles appear, which most of their writers are Kurds or Kurdstanis. So far only one Arab politician has admitted that that several nations live in Iraqi, and not one.
Noteworthy, as Professor Andreas Wimmer, lecturer of sociology at University of California has stated in his paper "Democracy and Ethno-religious Conflict in Iraq," that some thought that the Iraqi War of 2003 will remove the oppression the Baath regime inflicted upon his people. But, as a result of the operation, Iraq is the same country where Arabs aredominant. Therefore, looking at Iraq, it looks pretty much like an example of state collapse, such as Somali, Sierra lion, Colombia and Zaire.
Therefore, Professor Wimmer wants to start its paper to show that Iraq is an example of collapsed and failed state. The Iraqi Liberation Process, as America calls it, produced a country where Arabs once again became dominant. In other words, the efforts were directed towards rebuilding Iraq as part of the Arab nation. As Wimmer mentions that the aim of American policy in Iraq is to build the democratic foundation in Iraq, but since these efforts implemented are based on a failed state and there haven't been any efforts to turn this failed state into a modern and contemporary state, the democratic process in Iraq won't succeed. Even worse, the democratic process leads to the creation of ethnical and religious crises in Iraq.
Iraq will not become a democratic state due to two important factors, which are:
1- None of the major Iraqi Arab forces; be they the alliances between the Iraqi Shiites who have dominated the government, or the alliances between the Iraqi Sunnis such as the Iraqiya block who won the most seats of the March 2011 elections, don’t like the building of liberal democracy foundation, or what is also called Western democracy model. They cannot implement the principles of separation of the powers and practically solving the ethnical and religious problems which limits the executive power of the federal government. They need democracy just for the elections outcome, so as to take the government, or to create political pressures on the government. The lack of this will makes for America impossible to import democracy to Iraq.
2- The Iraqi War, or what America called the Iraqi Liberation Process, was unable to transform Iraq from a failed, forcefully combined country to a federal country of affirmative unity. Even if the Iraqis favor democracy it cannot build the democracy foundation, because those democratic principles that fit the term of union, will create challengers in the term of unity.
For instance, Kurdistan Region wants now to solve the status of the disputes territories according to the Constitution and Article 140 through a referendum. However, looking into the details of this sensitive issue, we can see that the implementation of that article is not such easy that tomorrow the Iraqi Arabs will accept the outcome of that referendum, or the Iraqi government peacefully agrees to remove the oppression on the people of Kurdistan which has being conducted along history against Kurds and the Kurdistanis. Contrarily, the Maliki's government is not only willing to do that, it even orders to the authorities of the disputes areas to take the down the flag of Kurdistan. Such orders show how the Baghdad's authorities think; that if the disputed territories become part of Kurdistan Region, then they it is like having them lost from Iraq. Strikingly, this is when Iraqi Kurdistan has decided to stay part of Iraq on its own consent. Therefore, when partnership is discussed in Iraq, simultaneously it puts limits for the current government and the ones before. While we ought to see steps for solving the problems, we notice steps to launch other problems and a new war.
Within the same context of Article 140 which covers territories in Kurdistan and in the south, we can observe that rearranging the administrations and local borders to their pre-Baath regime era won't create such crises. Simply because those areas are Arabs and they [Baghdad authorities] don't care about rearranging it. But, the Arabs ruin the whole world when the Kurds ask for the administrative return of Chamchamal, Kifri or the others, to the Kirkuk Province borders. In such a context, for avoiding problems, we have to seek for undemocratic alternatives or to accept the oppressions and grievances suffered by Kurds. Here, we reach the dead-crossroad of proclaiming the failure of federalism and democracy in Iraq.
Multiethnic federalism unsuccessful without liberal democracy
The major impediments in front of the post-Baath rebuilding Iraq as a federal and democratic state has not been that the political leadership of Kurdistan before the collapse of the regime has never thought of how Iraq remains united and how Kurds will remain willingly part of that united state if the Baath regime collapses, rather it has been due to that federalism and democracy had been something new for the Arab politicians. There never existed a true Arab or Muslim federal or democratic example to refer to. Therefore what the Kurds demanded didn't get support in the Muslim and Arab world, and America under the pressure of countries from the Muslim and Arab world, didn't recognize Iraqi federalism as a multiethnic state. On December, 14, 2011, Professor Lesley Gelb, the honorary president of Council of Foreign Relations told Gulan: "For three years I tried to clarify why federalism and the regions local governance are the only ways for providing peace and security for Iraq. I was unable to change a lot of people. Senator Biden [now the U.S. Vice-President] believed in federalism and tried hard to convince his fellow senators. But Saudi Arabia's influence against federalism was too strong. It seems that the Saudis still [2006] believe that the Arab Sunnis get back to power. This won't happen, but this is how Saudi Arabia and Arab Sunnis think."
What Professor Gelb said can be analyzed in two points:
1- Gelb mentions that for about three years she had been trying to convince the American senators and congressman that besides federalism and regions local governance (which means multiethnic federalism) there is no other solution for if Iraq wants to see peace and stability. Professor Gelb acknowledged to Gulan that she was unable to convince many people, and that Joseph Biden- then the Senator and Head of Foreign Relations Committee- tried to convince his colleagues, but he too was unsuccessful. If we look at Professor Gelb's position as the Honorary President of CFR, we can also notice that the same institution's Executive President was Richard Hass, who designed the New Middle East project and was during Clinton's term the director of Planning Staff in the U.S. State Department. Gelb's efforts were with Bush's congressman, senators and administration's officials. She says that she failed; what can we say to the Iraqi politicians who still don't know the differences between nation federalism and multiethnic federalism.
2- Gelb mentions the negative role of Saudi Arabia against the Iraqi federalism and says that until 2007 that country was an obstacle in front of implementing federalism in Iraq. She admits that Saudi's attempt was supporting the Sunnis to take over power. This means there is support among the Arab countries for Iraq to become centralized and not federalism.
Why only multiethnic federalism?
In 2002, one year before the Iraqi War, the Mustafa Barzani Center, as part of Peace Center for World in American University in Washington, held its second congress with the title "Iraqi Kurds are a key to stability in Iraq". In the conference a large number of Iraqi and Kurdish politicians, academics and experts were present. David L. Philips gave a presentation under the title "Power-sharing with Iraqi Kurds", where he outlined a guide for having peace and stability at once in Iraq. Professor Philips stated in his presentation paper that distribution and sharing of the powers is the best solution for Iraq to stay united in the future and that will also solve all the demands from all the different Iraqi ethnicities and sects. He also stated that the Saddam Hussein regime kept Iraq in a united form, but after his reign, no one will accept centralized government system.
The argument of Professor Philips means that distribution and sharing the power in Iraq will give the federal government of Baghdad only the power for protecting the Iraqi unity and the rest will be given to the regions where their people will rule themselves and their forces also will protect them. This, consequently, will pave the way for the just distribution of resources and having a consensus unity among all the Iraqi communities.
That is why after the collapse of the Baath regime in 2003 there has been no opportunity left to protect the Iraqi unity through dictatorship or totalitarianism. Those who work on these boiling issues recommend to the Iraqi government to understand that Iraq is not formed from one nation; it has the Kurdish and Arab nation, and several other ethnicities, such as Turkmens, Assyrians and Chaldeans. This diversity brings forth a question: How do these two major nations in Iraq live together? Experts answer is that the both nations should recognize the other as partner in Iraq, and both of them should also recognize and respect the rights of other ethnicities in Iraq who each for their own form small nations.
For making this real, experts think that nobody can build this partnership and unity in Iraq within federalism context, only the constitution and those laws which requires mechanisms for solving the problems and build the unity among the Iraqis, and the Iraqi constitution should be rewritten and implemented based on that principles. They, however, emphasize, that it is the duty of experts to show the Iraqis other examples from the world on how to solve the problems, but copying other countries experts would lead to repeat of their experience in Iraq, and not solving. Rebuilding the Iraqi state structure as a federal state and several other issues which during the institution building processes need concrete steps requires direct negotiations between the different Iraqi communities. In the institution-building process there should be efforts to fix the liberal democracy system principles which generally are: Voting right for every citizen over 18; freedom of political participations and political party’s activities; free and fair elections and campaigns; civil society; human rights bill; and freedom of press and speech. These principles strengthen the ground for building strong links between the Iraqi communities, especially between Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis, and all the communities shall reach an agreement on the distribution of Iraqi natural resources income.
How Iraqi government benefits from the failed experiments?
Some factors in federal states have led failed federalism experience and consequently the dissolution of the state. For preventing this from happening, both Professors John McDowell and Brendan O'Leary have outlined several reasons for worldwide failed federal experiments. They have shown the Iraqi politicians these reasons so as they avoid the same experiments. The reasons, according to them, are:
1- Not respecting the other: In a country where the majority ethnicity does not recognize the other ethnicities, there will be never consensual union among its ethnicities; rather it leads to secessionism, i.e., former Soviet Union republics.
2- Authoritarianism: One-group rule does not fit with the principles of federalism. When federalism principles are implemented, democracy is produced. The different communities should treat each other democratically. In case when the federal government is an authoritarian rule, the regions won't accept it. Examples for this are the Bangladesh secession from Pakistan and Croatia's secession for former Yugoslavia.
3- Historical problems: Failing to solve historical problems between the different ethnic and religious communities in that federal country, or the dominant nation has mistreated those problems and has closed the door for any chance to solve. The non-dominant nation will head towards secession. This happened between Malays and Chinese.
4- Income distribution problems: Failure in the economic development process, being unable to protect the economic distribution policy or redistribution those incomes that has to do with economic policies. Such problems lay the ground for secessionism. Examples of these would be the secession of Slovakia and the Czech Republic.
5- Coups for altering the federal state structure to centralized government. The Serbs in former Yugoslavia did many such attempts. They were not only unsuccessful; rather, their attempts led to increase of secessionism demands by the other ethnicities and ultimately dissolved the Yugoslavia.
Iraqi federalism compared to failed experiments
These five reasons outlined by these experts' years ago have also been suggested to the Iraqi politicians to avoid the world failed federal examples. However, the Iraqi government has deliberately summoned all the five problems in itself. And each of this reason can lead to the failure of Iraq too. Assessing the Iraqi federal experiment based on these five reasons, it becomes clear that:
1- Since 2005 that the Iraqi government has been established, there continues the denial policy, killing of Kurds, and failure in removing the former Baath policies against Kurds. This means that the Iraqi government is not ready to recognize the Kurdish rights straightforwardly.
2- Practicing a domination policy. This policy started from the first cabinet and still continues.
3- The problems Kurds have since ever the establishment of the Iraqi state, have not only been not solved in post-Saddam era, but the Iraqi government has continually tried to make it an unresolved and deadlocked issue. If a government does not want to solve its problems, especially the problems of the disputed territories, then it repeats the Yugoslavian experiment in Iraq.
4- The natural resources income distribution which is regarded as a problem, is originally not a problem because the Kurdistan Regional Government has agreed to return any income from its natural resources to Baghdad's pocket. But Baghdad still tried not to leave the KRG any change in drafting the policies regarding natural resources administration and income distribution. Therefore it has created a problems much complex than those of Slovakia and Czech.
5- Coups on federalism and centralism tendency. This is the reality of the current government which has violated all the constitutional procedures for sharing the powers and establishing the regions. The government is practically having a centralized rule. This policy in Iraq is so far accepted by all the communities due to the critical period Iraq passes through, but when it reaches to a centralized rule, it would be very impossible to accept.
Future of democratic Kurdistan Region in Iraq
If Iraq cannot become a democratic and federal state, the remaining of Kurdistan Region within a centralized state that does not believe in democracy in federalism is very unlikely. An example very close to the Kurdistan Region is Taiwan. The government in Taiwan is very democratic, and Chinese government is authoritarian. Meanwhile, there are efforts and demands to Taiwan to rejoin China. These demands are being neglected by the international community and it has not been allowed Taiwan to be annexed to China, because there seems be little chance that there might union and partnership emerge between Taipei and Beijing at this stage. Although China is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, it is unable to annex Taiwan to its territory. It is important to learn from this experience. Until the Iraqi government becomes a real democratic and federal, the powers of KRG should be extended as much as Taiwan's and the problems of the disputed territories should be solved in a way that this democratic government can be protected within Iraq.



Translated by: Ari Mamashae
Top