No one knows how the current struggle for power in Iraq might shape up in the months to come. But one thing is certain: the four principal options available in recent Arab politics are now present in Iraq.
The choice the Iraqis make is sure to have an impact on developments in other Arab countries. The first option could be described as democratic.
This week we saw it in action in the National Conference in Baghdad. This type of politics is based on competition among ideas, policies and programs. It involves political parties and other groupings of like-minded individuals. It is messy, often chaotic, and always vulnerable to the impact of the imponderable.
Democratic politics is concerned with the possible rather than the ideal. It aims at compromise rather than confrontation. No one emerges from it fully satisfied. For in democratic politics one often ends up with a second choice which coincides with the second choices of others.
This type of politics is not immune against demagogues, double-dealers and spin-doctors. On the whole, however, because it does not depend on individuals, democratic politics is better equipped to absorb errors and correct its trajectory.
Democratic politics was seldom on offer to any Arab people for an adequate length of time. The claim that the Arabs supposedly do not like, or deserve, democratic politics, therefore, remains a matter of conjecture. Iraq will show whether or not this is the case.
The second type of politics on offer in Iraq is the classical form of despotism based on a perversion of nationalistic ideals. This Nosferatu-like despotism, the mortally wounded monster that refuses to die, is represented by the remnants of the Tikriti regime.
They have made the presence felt through terrorist attacks, assassination and paramilitary action against the US occupation forces and the Iraqi interim government.
Unlike democratic politics that has little history in Iraq, despotism, in its various forms, has, with brief interludes, dominated Iraq between the military coup d’etat of 1958 and the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003.
Again, unlike democratic politics that, by definition, cannot have a single iconic figure, despotism in Iraq today is still symbolized by Saddam Hussein in his prison cell.
In other words, and leaving aside rhetoric, the nostalgics of despotism offer nothing but a restoration of Saddam Hussein to power.
The third option on offer in Iraq is militia politics, as represented by Moqtada Sadr. This type of politics has already been tested in several countries notably Lebanon and Afghanistan where it led to bloody civil wars.
Like militia politics everywhere, the Iraqi version lacks a coherent program and is entirely built around a charismatic leader, in this case Sadr, and a sense of ethnic and/or sectarian identity. Nobody quite knows what it is exactly that Sadr wants, so changeable are his moods and positions.
The only certain fact is that he does not want to go to prison because of alleged involvement in murdering Abdul-Majid Khoi, a fellow-Shiite cleric, in April 2003. Nobody knows what a regime headed by Sadr might look like.
The fourth option available in Iraq is, strictly speaking, neither Iraqi nor a choice. It is represented by the non-Iraqi terrorist groups operating in a few localities in and near Baghdad. These groups that may or may not be linked to Al-Qaeda have as their symbol the figure of the Jordanian terror-master Abu-Musaab Al-Zarqawi.
The only one of the four options that gives the people of Iraq the last word is the democratic option.
If the Iraqis opt for a return of despotism they will have Saddam back. If, on the other hand, they lean toward militia politics, they will end up with Sadr.
Not surprisingly, Sadr, Saddam and Zarqawi are united in their efforts to deny the Iraqis the chance to choose for themselves. This is why they will do everything in their power to disrupt the political process and prevent next January’s elections from taking place. They fear elections because they know that a majority of the Iraqi people do not wish to submit to dictatorial rule of any kind.
The four choices now available in Iraq cannot leave the rest of us indifferent. Other Arabs and Muslims, and beyond them the rest of mankind as well, have an interest in the choice that the Iraqis might make.
The Arab media and governments are already divided on the issues, making different choices. Some are sincerely working for the first option: To give Iraq a chance to choose its future. Others are putting some chips on militia politics a la Sadr while still others encourage the Tikriti remnants and/or the Zarqawi gang in a number of underhand ways.
Politics is always about choice; it is about taking sides by supporting one option against another.
Some sections of the Arab media, and some politicians, are desperate to avoid openly taking sides in Iraq while indirectly encouraging Sadrism, Tikritism or Zarqawism. They lack the courage to admit that they do not want the Iraqis to have elections, but they do everything to blacken the democratic option in the name of nationalism and/or religion.
What is the real issue in Iraq today? It is to create a new government whose legitimacy is based on free elections.
Opponents of the democratic option, however, constantly try to shift the focus from that imperative to other issues. For example, they say the Arabs are humiliated because non-Arab armies changed an Arab regime.
Well, the reason that that happened is simple: Saddam created a regime that could not be overthrown by the Iraqi people alone. But does that amount to a political version of the original sin?
Should the Iraqis be forced to live under another despotic regime simply to cure the Arabs of their supposed humiliation?
The US-led coalition was able to enter Iraq because Iraq had been denied normal, not to say democratic, politics for half a century. The only way to get the US-led forces out of Iraq is to allow that country to have normal democratic politics. Car bombs, throat-cutting, hostage-taking, and hiding in shrines will not drive the US-led coalition out. Only a freely-elected government can ask the coalition to withdraw in accordance with the latest resolution by the United Nations’ Security Council.
By opposing democratization, Sadr, Saddam Hussein and Zarqawi are, in fact, prolonging the country’s occupation.
Free elections in Iraq would not only spell the end of occupation but could also close the careers of Sadr, Saddam and Zarqawi.
The Iraqi people should do all they can to prevent their country from becoming a “cause” for extremists. The Iraqis want a country in which they could live as normal human beings.
