August 18, 2005

Despite and against all efforts of the occupation, the seeds of an Iraqi renaissance have been sown. The future of Iraq lies not in faux constitutions, but in its people, writes Abdullah Al-Bayaty*

Only those who are not aware of the propaganda tools and methods historically used by imperialist powers to divide and conquer peoples can believe that there is in Iraq today a genuine political process meant to build a unified state with a permanent constitution. It is obvious that the occupation is attempting to build three protectorates so weak and conflicting that Iraqis will not be able to get rid of American military, political and economic control. There is no real political process in Iraq now to build a unified state respected by all Iraqis and by the world. The people participating in what the Americans call a political process cannot build a unified Iraqi state, nor do they want to.

From an international law perspective, the pre-emptive war against Iraq and the subsequent occupation are illegal. The use of force against a sovereign state is restricted to self-defence, in particular to situations where a state has been subject to armed attack or aggression. Iraqi sovereignty and Iraq's peoples' right to resist is protected by the UN Charter, The Hague Treaty of 1907 and the Geneva Conventions. These documents concede that laws passed under occupation are made by and for the occupation, not by an independent state, and cannot in any way become permanent. To bypass these legal constraints the United States attempted to disguise its invasion as liberation. But, the opposition of the international community and of the majority of the Iraqi people forced them to ask the UN Security Council to issue resolution 1533, which described them as an occupation force. By approving resolution 1533, the US committed itself to certain duties and constraints as set out under international law.

An occupying power cannot change the social, economic or political make-up of the occupied country and cannot link this country to any agreements or treaties that exceed the occupation. American strategists and their Iraqi supporters introduced the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL) drafted by American civil administrator Paul Bremer, not only to overcome the legal obstacles, but also to be used as a weapon against an increasing resistance. Most Iraqi political, religious and social powers, for different reasons, were opposed to this law. The UN Security Council did not even mention it when issuing resolution 1546, knowing that it had no right to change the constitution of a member state. This law sets the path for the so-called political process. The first step of which was called "transfer of sovereignty" to a government appointed by the Interim Governing Council, itself appointed by the occupation. In reality, there was no transfer of sovereignty. According to the TAL, primary state functions -- such as security, defence, the economy and justice -- remain in the hands of the occupying power. The transfer of power process was nothing more than disguising the TAL and occupation measures as Iraqi law.

The second step was to feign the election of a national constituent assembly. Indeed, the election campaign period was used to marginalise and prevent popular movements or streams from participating. Military campaigns were launched against several movements under different pretexts: sometimes for being Baathists, other times armed militias, other times terrorist Islamist organisations. The occupation even carried out large-scale military operations under the pretext that some towns wanted to hinder the elections -- such as the holy city of Najaf, the martyred Fallujah, Sadr City and Samarra. This terrorism and bloodshed, along with the TAL, added to the illegitimacy of the electoral commission. Later, the fact that half the population boycotted the elections decreased further the legitimacy of this elected assembly.

The occupation has created a situation in which the possibility to organise a free and fair referendum on a constitution is impossible. Currently, no one knows exactly who the citizens of Iraq who should approve the constitution are, what is their number or where they live. Chaos and destruction prevail in such a way that no one can prove his or her citizenship. In the absence of a trusted population census, the legitimacy of any referendum over a draft will be in question.

In reality, by occupying Iraq the United States has annulled the concept of citizenship -- the basis of any modern state. It annulled sovereignty, destroyed its heritage and memory and took over its wealth in an attempt to divide the country and destroy its Arab and Islamic geopolitical and civilisation-based affiliations. The occupation has tried -- and continues to try -- to replace Iraq by a subordinate state based on ethnic and sectarian affiliation: a state of parties, ethnicities and religious references rather than a state of equal and free citizens. Those participating in the American political process no longer accept that there is one people in Iraq constituting the totality of the state's citizens. The Kurds, for example, voted for independence on the same day they elected those who represented them in drafting the constitution. In doing so, the United States claims that it will establish a constitutional, democratic state that will serve as an example for the whole Middle East. However, the chaos, destruction and ruptures it created will not allow it to establish a state that enjoys the respect of the Iraqi people, let alone establish a constitutional democratic state.

The methods used by the occupation and its forces prove that the US wishes to decide Iraq's present and future through military means. Its violent attacks already claimed tens of thousands of innocent lives. Tens of thousands of political prisoners are held in custody, tens of thousands of state employees have been dismissed, the number of unemployed reaching millions. The occupation continues on a daily basis its military operations against cities and villages and assassinates scientists, religious scholars and clerics, as well as former military personnel. The verbal manipulation of calling the occupation forces "multinational forces" will not change the reality. Occupation is the highest form of dictatorship as it wishes to determine the future of the occupied country by military force with the help of party militias that support it.

Power, however, does not create right. A permanent constitution is meant to lay down the principles and mechanisms agreed upon by citizens in order to live peacefully together and to organise public affairs. Through this state the citizens express their sovereignty over their land and wealth. The current "political process" is only a weapon to fight those who oppose the occupation. Iraqi society, which formed an economic and social unit for thousands of years, will not be able to bandage its wounds, strengthen its unity and draft a permanent constitution until the withdrawal of the occupation and the elimination of its impact. Only then can Iraq embark in a peaceful and civilised way towards building a democratic state. Only then can centralisation, non-centralisation or a federal system be chosen. Democracy is the door to these decisions, not the other way around. No democracy can exist without the sovereignty of the people.

Through its projects and behaviour, the occupation is giving us a caricature of democracy. It wants to pass a constitution stained with the blood of our people. On our part, we should admit that the concepts of a constitutional state and of political activity, along with the concept of democracy itself, remain foggy within prevalent Iraqi political thinking. This thinking suffers many flaws. Among them is an amazing ability to transform every real issue into an abstract one -- into faith and then sanctify it. This way of thinking searches for truth not in real history but in the history of ideas and in script. Undoubtedly, the reason behind this is the age of darkness that isolated us from Arab and Islamic civilian (secular) thinking. It is due to our lack of live interaction with contemporary international ideas. We merely adopt results. Thus, it is no wonder that our thinking addresses all theories as charms, talismans and sacred texts. Even democracy has become a set of individual ethics rather than a working project and a political act. We should refrain from sanctifying political thinking or we will never be able to build a democratic state.

A democratic state is a state based upon equality between citizens -- men and women -- without discrimination. It is based on the citizens' management of the affairs of their country, society and their own lives, freely, through the nomination of representatives, voting and the periodic transferral of power. It is not the dream of enlightened intellectuals or faultless heroes. It is a functional organisation of the political aspect of society. The issue of politics is public. Thus, its main focus is the state and its main tasks, which involve managing public funds, drafting and enforcing legislation, is to serve the public interest. Politics does not focus on personal or subjective issues. Politics is not directly linked to human conscience, individual morals or private lives. It leaves these issues to religious clerics, artists, writers, philosophers and those concerned with human values. The state is the vessel wherein human beings exercise their common and political public life. It is not an arm for the dominance of an individual, group or class. Power is not a matter of personal authorisation. It characterises a certain assignment, time-limited, for implementing a certain policy. If Arab political thinking were able to address the issue of politics clearly it would no longer become an issue of individual ethics, belief, sacred references and undisputable theses incapable of coexisting with each other, let alone the opposite.

For constitutional democratic thinking to develop, the vanguard idea that brought to our countries the deepest tragedies should be criticised. Everything is the vanguard to something else. The danger concerning the idea of the vanguard is that it only derives its legitimacy from itself. The only source of legitimacy is the will of the citizens, men and women, expressed through voting, nomination and periodic elections. In this case there cannot exist a vanguard that enjoys permanent political privileges because this contradicts equality between citizens and democratic legitimacy. The idea of the vanguard prevalent in our countries protects those who believe in it from having to check upon the will of the citizens and be accountable. Vanguards believe they know what's good for the people better than the people themselves. They claim they represent the will of the people without exerting any effort to find out how to ask citizens about their will, or how to change the government or its procedures if the people reject them. They believe that legitimacy is derived from reaching power, regardless of the means. Once they reach it they announce -- to hinder others -- that they will only be subject to their own will, that they will stay indefinitely and that the legitimacy of their decisions, measures and laws stems from their presence in power. It is no wonder that state and society suffer in separation and that power becomes a personal plaything rather than the political heritage of society. The most important point these vanguards miss is that society is a living body where cultural, economic or political powers grow and change. Any attempt to block the path of development is equivalent to blocking the path of legitimacy and authority for themselves. Indeed, non-democratic vanguard rule always turns into the rule of a group of people, the departure of whom everyone awaits because its political action was restricted to violence, oppression, and -- sometimes -- plundering.

There is nothing sacred in the state. It is the sum of institutions, measures, laws and activities that organise real people's lives together. It is a worldly apparatus, even if people deal with it from the standpoint of their religious and spiritual values. Issues related to the state or politics should not be given a sacred character because sacred issues cannot be criticised, objected to or requested to change. The state should not interfere in sacred affairs or religious institutions because its scope of activity is related to the public life of people rather than to conscience, belief, thought and private life. However, the state constitution should prescribe some principles that stem from, or agree with, our Arab and Islamic geopolitical, civilisation-based affiliation.

The totality of the citizens constitutes the people of Iraq. The people alone are the sole source of sovereignty and of constitutional, political and judicial legitimacy. The government is responsible and accountable to all citizens. Solidarity between citizens, between generations, between the different territories making up the country, and with the elderly, the ill, children and orphans, those in need, indeed every human being who finds himself in a state of weakness, should form the basis of social policy. Our natural resources, our material heritage, and the riches of our culture and civilisation are the property of the totality of the Iraqi people in all its successive generations, both past and future. Ownership of this wealth, whether in whole or in part, cannot be alienated by any public or private entity. The general interest and public service are the justification and basis for the operation of the state. It is forbidden to use the state apparatus or its institutions for personal or sectarian ends. Responsibility for sovereignty, security, national defence, justice, health, education, communication, water, energy, transportation and all other services, including the management of public finances, natural resources and the country's material and cultural heritage, belongs to the state. Every citizen has the right to enjoy these services, free from any form of discrimination. The people give to or withdraw confidence from the government; they can approve or reject state actions and laws through periodic, free and fair elections of a legislative authority, without interference or discrimination from the state's institutions. Each Iraqi has the right -- without discrimination -- to vote and be nominated.

The national army is the means of the state to defend the land. The army's organisation, training, weaponry and activities are subject to the freely elected parliament. The army only receives orders from a government appointed by an elected parliament. Iraq should prohibit the building of foreign military bases on its territory, as well as prohibit armed political parties and associations. Iraq is part of the Arab and Muslim world. Its relations with the countries of these two worlds should be based on brotherhood, peace and cooperation to foster their harmonious, reciprocal and complementary interest and development. The freely elected Iraqi parliament should make sure that Iraq does not represent a source of aggression or a threat -- or a passageway for aggression -- against any Arab or Muslim country. Iraq should commit itself to the UN Charter, the Arab League and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. The principles and treaties derived from these organisations should be part of Iraq's constitution.

Democracy has become a social and political necessity, a feasible program. It is no longer a dream hard to fulfil, as was the case in the 1950s. The youth of the nation engaged today in fighting the occupation will build this democratic state after forcing the occupier out. With the youth struggling against the occupation and hungry for freedom there is a democratic renaissance. It will not stop. The youth has broken the restrictions of past and present regimes, ideologies and organisations, in order to practice action in person. This youth are the sons of what we call the middle and lower class of the country. The educated middle class has gained enough social weight to render country affairs unmanageable without it. The middle class can no longer accept being excluded from running state affairs. This middle class can no longer accepts all the cultural, political and social restrictions that ruled its life because it no longer accepts or believes in empty decisions, speeches and policies. The middle class holds the heritage, technical skills and modernism to defend the separation of religion from the state, equality between men and women and sovereignty over Iraq's natural resources. This youth will not accept selling short the rights of the country and the nation.

* The writer is an Iraqi political analyst based in France.