EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Deadly Lie of Democracy in Iraq
"It has been almost a million
months since Iraqis ran to the polls, to fill holes in their souls with
bloodstained ballots. Hundreds of candidates dressed up as maggots
colored the liberal lining in occupied skies, and perpetuated the lies
that there is democracy. Hypocrisy of the highest order, politicians
blaming their failure on porous borders, while blindly following
American orders on everything from defense to education. The death of a
nation, systematic assassination and relentless dehumanization of
millions of people. The burning of mosques, schools, hospitals and
steeples for crumbs of rotten bread. Iraq is dead, shot in the heart and
stabbed in the head." -- Excerpt from a new spoken word piece entitled,
"Unfinished Letters from Iraq."
Prior to the parliamentary elections in Iraq on 7 March of this year,
all the major political factions running in the country's nationwide
elections declared the entire affair to be corrupt and not
representative of the people's will. They were preemptively cooking an
excuse for any unwanted results that might emerge out of the charade.
Independent reports corroborated their suggestions with testimonies of
fake registration forms and leaky ballot boxes. However, the elections
went through, and the results were applauded by other fake democracies
around the world. Since then a constipated coalition-building process
has left Iraq with no government for more than eight months.
In spite of the satirical sadness of it all, the liberal media, and
Iraq's desperate population, continue to hold on to the electoral
proceedings with religious fervor. From outside Iraq, those who
politically organized the occupation see the elections as justification
for their complicity in mass murder. Meanwhile those inside the country
try to cope with the immense loss of life by pinning their misguided
hopes on the empty promises of one politician or the other.
The inaccuracy of the results and the subsequent drama only tell part of
the story. An elections process cleverly diverts all attention from the
colossal incompetency of the government, and spins the tall tale of a
young, fledgling born-again country instead. The reality is that
democracy in Iraq does not exist beyond the show business of sham
elections.
In the absence of food, electricity, water, education, health, safety
and dignity, the vote exists merely as a tool to stretch the life
expectancy of the occupation and ironically works to quell any
grassroots movements that would build genuine democratic institutions in
the country. Students, workers, community organizations, women, single
mothers, the disabled, orphans, the poor and all other marginalized
sectors of society continue to watch democracy from a painful distance
while bearing the brunt of its epic failures.
Historically, the emergence of a sovereign, self-sustained, secular,
progressive, economically powerful country in the region was a worrisome
possibility for an oil-hungry United States, obsessed with growing
Soviet expansionism in the post-Second World War era. As such, the last
forty years have witnessed a program of pillaging and exploitation that
has eaten its way through some of the most fertile land in the world.
Under Saddam Hussein's Baath party, civil society in Iraq was destroyed,
personal freedoms exterminated and the majority of the country's
resources were wasted on a paranoid dictatorship and an American proxy
war with Iran. Under the sanctions, Iraq's infrastructure was
annihilated, millions of people were killed and theft and corruption
took a stronghold in the mismanagement of the country's affairs. Since
the occupation, millions more have had their lives destroyed, the
greatest systematic extortion of a country's resources successfully
executed and the language of sectarianism has choked the aspirations of
many generations to come. Throughout this time, America also unleashed
the most violent warfare in the history of mankind.
The elections are just another part of this death sentence issued to Iraq.
In 1963, the CIA-backed coup that deposed the populist, left-leaning
government of Brigadier General Abdul Karim Qassim, and eventually
brought Saddam's Baath party to power, seems like it just happened
yesterday. During the bloody hijack, lists of progressive activists were
provided to Baathist henchmen by the US to be murdered in campuses and
other public spaces. One of the men toting a gun, terrorizing the
University of Baghdad, was none other than the esteemed Dr. Ayad Allawi
himself, one of the main contestants in the recent Iraqi elections. He
is the leader of the Iraqi National Movement (al-Iraqiya), the political
party which won the greatest number of seats.
His rival, Nouri al-Maliki, is secretary general of the Islamic Dawa
(Preaching) Party, which was established by a collection of clerics in
the 1960s to build an Islamic state in Iraq. Although it was not secular
like its Baathist counterpart, it also saw socialism as its main enemy.
From its inception, al-Maliki's party enjoyed an incestuous
relationship with the Islamic Revolution in Iran, and lived under its
protection throughout the entirety of Saddam's regime. Both the party's
history and sectarian outlook make it a perfect complement to the
complete destruction of Iraq, and thus has enjoyed great success in
occupied Iraq. Currently, the Dawa Party operates under the guise of the
State of Law Coalition which received the second greatest number of
seats in the 2010 elections.
Both parties are self-avowed friends of the US and employ a strategy of
completely burning Iraq so they can rebuild it according to their own
perverted, US-endorsed visions of democracy. While Allawi prefers a
nationalist-leaning, neoliberal death for the country, al-Maliki intends
to bury Baghdad and other cities under the rubble of sectarian strife.
In both cases, tyranny, corruption and mass murder are required elements
to complete the task. To that end, the US is ecstatic, and is satisfied
with playing a role of a divisive dictator from a distance.
From al-Maliki and Allawi, one can also get a sense of the entire Iraqi
political spectrum that is killing its way to power. Different
variations of religious fundamentalism, ultranationalism, hyperactive
capitalism and incompetency define democracy in the country. And despite
their differences in delivery, the outcome is still the same: greater
suffering for the people of Iraq. Al-Sadr, al-Chalabi, Talibani,
al-Dulaimi, al-Hakim, al-Alousi and al-Jaafari are just some of the
crooks that have terrorized Iraq for the better part of the last decade.
The solution to Iraq's woes goes beyond its borders, stretching from the
impoverished streets of Cairo, over the apartheid wall in Palestine and
all the way to the coalition killing fields near Kabul. Without an
internationalist and radical awakening in the fields and factories of
Iraq, the people will continue to be victims to the vote. Without a
concerted central effort to rebuild the country's infrastructure, Iraqis
will continue to live in near-apocalyptic conditions, waiting
hopelessly for their imminent death. Without control of the country's
resources, Iraq will operate infinitely as a one-stop shop for vultures
vying for easy profits.
One could argue that choosing a government is a necessary precursor for
all these things to take place, but the mechanisms that govern Iraq are
far away from the hands of the government. Elected officials are nothing
more than glorified pimps that are holding down Iraq's head while it is
being violated by dozens of dollar-driven demons. In the absence of a
progressive, radical, grassroots political program, the death of Iraq
will continue to evolve from one election booth to the next.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

23 Comments so far
Show AllAnd why would anyone expect Iraq to escape the deadly lie of democracy? It comes direct from the "freedom and democracy" exporter as an integral part of the package, fully tested and approved in the home factory.
I personally have always been puzzeled by the notion that a nation and people should (or would) adopt a foreign concept of government with no historical links or traditions of it rooted in their culture.
It seems a conceit to believe that one method fits all to me. If you travel around the world its quite evident that you can have freedom without democracy, more limited because of the systems used of course, but still most of the freedoms we use everyday.
I don't often agree with you, but I think you have a very strong point on this one.
It's not so much "freedom and democracy" per se, however those particular terms may be defined by their widely diverse advocates, but the notion that any systems and attendant values that are deemed good for Americans MUST be good for everyone else, even if they have to be exported and imposed by force of arms against the opposition of "less enlightened" populations.
And, I would add, that attitude is by no means confined to any one U.S. political party or popular affiliate grouping.
It's not democracy per se, but "polyarchy", a term coined by the foremost theorist of the type of democracy implemented in the United States, Robert Dahl:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RmK-wBVcWw
Here's an audio interview of William Robinson who has covered the overseas variant of this form of "democracy":
http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/faculty/robinson/audio.html
Precisely. Thanks for the links.
But what would make anyone think there is a viable "democracy" in America ?
The inevitable consequence for a nation that "Kills all its Socialists".
No country can ever have Democracy if they fail to have Political parties or people that represent the SOCIAL good OF the people.
Iraq is an example of "No Democracy" as is Iran. As is the United States and close behind them the Countries whose leadership abandons the "Social" good in pursuit of Corporate graft and self interest.
Corporatism and Democracy are at the opposite ends of the spectrum. Never the twain shall meet.
While essentially agreeing with you, I shall disagree on your last paragraph.
I think Corporatism and Democracy could potentially co-exist, so long as the corporations and the wealthy (the money) do not have the ability to buy the politicians and so long as the money does not control the media. The trouble in most western "democracies" and the USA especially is that while they are officially democracies, the fact that money controls the media and the parliament makes the democracy worthless. The military industrial complex is an example of this. It is more the facade of democracy in neon lights giving false legitimacy to what effectively is a plutocracy.
Of course, the money that controls the parliaments and the media need not be local money. For example, Australia, and Britain have "democracies" that are largely controlled by the USA. The influence of AIPAC in the USA is another example. What a perfect model, then, for the control of Iraq, etc.
I though of some means of limiting the control that the money has over the media and the parliaments:-
* If the ownership of the media was forcefully spread out among the population, that would do it. It could be done by dividing the ownership into a certain amount of shares according to the size of the audience, and insisting that any one person can own at most a single share. Note that through advertising, the corporations and the super rich can still have a large influence on the media, but because they would not own it, their influence would be much less.
* One way of erecting a wall between the money and the parliament is not to elect them, but to have people elected by means of a lottery for a set term. By the laws of random numbers, such a parliament would effectively represent the people. Since there is no such thing as election money, this would effectively remove a great deal of the (legal) ways in which the money can be used to influence parliamentarians.
Well I would disagree with you. Corporate power and access to wealth gives a lot more acess to forms of "power" over another individual then that which results from the ability to bribe the Politician.
One gets better lawyers, health care , a better education. One is less likely to be imprisoned for drug use. One has the ability to hire and fire and destroy livelihoods and at the larger level, the economies of communities, States and even countries.
The media as we know it did not exist in 1880 in Russia yet a small handful of people held all the POWER.
In essence Capitalism in its inequitable distribution of wealth is an inequitable distribution of power. A Corporation that instructs its workers "Vote Republican or we shall move our operations to China" either directly or implicitly excercises a power the worker does not have. Losing ones job when it the only form of income and one already in debt is very different then losing a stream of "revenue" when one has a "net worth" of 3 billion dollars.
This is the clearest and most honest description of what has happened to Iraq, that I have seen, since the illegal invasion was launched in 2003. The US destroyed Iraq so it could steal its resources, mainly oil, at no matter what cost. This is the most heinous crime since at least the Nazi destruction of much of Europe, and 6 million Jews, on the face of this tortured planet.
And the chief instigators, the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice/Powell cabal, are STILL being celebrated IN THIS COUNTRY as liberators! Only the most depraved, immoral psychopaths would permit such monsters to roam around at will, giving speeches, "writing" books with multi-million dollar advances, being interviewed on national media and chattered about as if they're great visionaries deserving of Nobel Prizes and limitless wealth. This is without doubt the most shameless country that has ever defiled the earth. The sooner it collapses entirely, the better off every living thing.
E 11:03 excellent article. The fact that Chavez and Saddam were planning to only accept Euros for oil was another reason for the attacks.
Ephraim,
Much in the same vain as this article is Nir Rosen's book "Aftermath: Following the Bloodshed of America's Wars in the Muslim World."
Where power and wealthy are worshiped, the people lose.
"The reality is that democracy in Iraq does not exist beyond the show business of sham elections."
If the US's goal was to export its own political system to Iraq, then "Mission Accomplished!"
Like US, like Iraq. No difference between the two parties. I got it. We didn't bring democracy to Iraq, we brought more duopoly to Iraq I think.
It's not just that Iraqis do not accept American/Western ideas about "freedom and democracy". It's not just that they have few cultural and historical reference points from which to re-structure their society along US lines. Those things are probably true, just as they were in Vietnam (read Fire in the Lake by Frances Fitzgerald).
It's that the people have to have the means of survival. The basic infrastructure of work, the basic means to generate income, must be present or you cannot have a functional democracy. In Iraq, as Habib points out, the economic basis of the country has beem destroyed by a succession of criminals and thugs empowered arbitrarily and capriciously, if indirectly by the Cold War West. What Saddam and his insane war with the equally repellant thugs of Iran did not destroy, the US occupation did.
The need for a functional economy is probably painfully obvious to anybody paying attention, but has been, deliberately left out of what we in the US call "the debate" on the Middle East. Instead we prattle on blandly about "stabilization" and "security", as if any such thing were possible when a formally industrial country has no adequate energy, sewage, water, roads, medical, educational or industrial services. We content ourselves with this idiocy, while Iraqis pay the price.
There is no cover deep or dark enough to hide the terrible shame Barack Obama has brought on himself, the Democrats and the country by continuing these wars indefinitely. The Cheney/Bush Regime were sociopaths; they were the embodiment of a virulent national hysteria, but Obama knows better, isn't crazy and does not answer to the Houston oil cabal who put Cheney/Bush in power. He is therefore, I believe, more culpable than a hapless, angry dimbulb like Bush or a clearly deranged fanatic like Cheney. And as for those of us who keep making excuses for Obama, what's our excuse? Where can we hide?
The Deadly Lie of Democracy in (_________)
Democracy was never intended to empower the people. It's history dates back to the Greeks and it's founding principles were to create elite and quite controlled social and political arrangements.
The understanding of the "State" as growing directly out of the "Police" and the army, and intended for no other purpose than to enforce property dates back much, much farther. The original organization of Athens is based on military districts which not only yield a fixed quota of troops but also revenues to fund mounted archers who are slaves - the first police force. The rule of the demos, i.e. "democracy", grows directly from this. The innovation here, is not the "fairness" of the Athenian democracy. In fact it is a huge step backward from the Greek Tribes which were based on consensus and one vote for each adult. In place of that, the "Democracy" recognizes only one out of every 32 people as citizens. It's key is not its incorporation of the people (except for those formally so defined), but in its organization of the state, and through it, the guarantee of personal property, most importantly in slaves.
This is yet another example of a thing we see through a thick fog, whereas those who came before us had a much clearer view.
Twenty five hundred years after inception of democracy, we still do not understand that we were ruled by Pentacosiomedimni, Solon's aristocracy who could generate 500 bushels of goods annualy. Nothing has changed in the meantime, even the measure of wealth remains the same: bushels and barrels!
Nice history lesson. But I know you know better than to confuse "it's" with "its." I also know this mistake has reached literally universal proportions, and almost no one left alive seems to understand the difference. "It's" means it is, or it has, however boring it is to forever be reminding people of this. "Its" is the possessive, as in "Its history dates back to the Greeks and its founding principles were to create elite and quite controlled social and political arrangements."
Trust me, I do realize that I'm howling in the wilderness here.
Ephraim:
I began to notice this first in emails, then in online meeting places like this. I have a half-baked theory that it has something to do with the process of typing online as opposed to handwriting on paper or even typing on an old typewriter. Perhaps it has to do with the way in which we can put anything down because it can always be corrected invisibly before anyone sees it--but never is, of course. In the old days we had to be sure of the spelling before we typed it or wrote it by hand and the slowness of the process made it easier to get it right. I catch myself doing it and I'm a former English professor--among other things.
On a related note, the Swedish prosecutor's office has issued an international arrest warrant for Julian Assange.
I posted it on a few articles here. I don't know why it hasn't been published on CD news.
I wonder what the US government has on the Swedes that got them to do this. It certainly is not in the interest of Sweden.
The USA probable has a couple of satellite lasor beams focused on Sweden (for targeting purposes).
If you see articles worthy of putting on the site, if you haven't, you might try emailing a link of the news to the news email address on CD's website (see About Us section).