U.S. newspaper: Iraq is not a democratic model for the Arabs
On: Tuesday 31/7/2012 8:59

since the uprisings that shook the Arab world in December 2010, the activists, politicians and analysts are looking for models for a new democratic governments assume power in these countries. Could consider Iraq and Turkey, two options for testing and examination

Based on the concept that these are the only two examples of democracy in Muslim majority countries in the Middle East.
started the idea of reviving the democratic project in Iraq is enhanced in 1998, driven by the United States. For this and based on the (legislation liberation of Iraq) for the year 1998 "should the United States supports efforts to topple the regime led by Saddam Hussein in Iraq and promote the emergence of a democratic government instead of that system." At the time was the motivation behind the project of democracy in Iraq is President George W. Bush, who was following the steps of his predecessors the British.
with the stated purpose is to help the Iraqi people the powder to get rid of the unjust ruler and bring progress and democracy to the country. But there is an ambitious target for Bush last mentioned and is also a democratic transformation of post-Saddam to a model for other Arab countries. And so on the morning of the invasion, Bush said that "a free Iraq can be a source of hope for all the Middle East ... instead of threatening its neighbors and export of terrorism, Iraq could be a model for progress and prosperity in the region need to be both." And on another occasion said, saying that "the people of Iraq, which Barthh a matter of pride and its heavy and culture and skill of its people, can shift to democracy and to live in freedom." But how this eroded democracy in Iraq? And you could be a model or "source of hope" for the other Arab countries?
defects in the Iraqi model
Unfortunately, the rush to develop a framework for democratic post-Saddam Iraq reminds us of the previous experience of the British in this country. But this time the Constitution was born disagreements and conflicts between the various partners on topics such as place of religion in the state or the role of women. Overall these differences have focused on what it described as the Wall Street Journal as "two different visions of what Iraq will look like: a country interested in a little ethnic and religious divisions, or country weaves those divisions within the political fabric." Although many Iraqis have had an important opinion in writing of the Constitution, the democratic experiment as a whole looks as if the dictates of the United States. Contrary to what was in the previous regime, the Iraqi people have participated in the three free democratic elections to some extent. With that and with a framework of democratic institutions, these institutions lack the spirit and thrust, and is often paralyzed parliament, and may it took a whole year to form a government after the 2010 elections because of the failure of Nuri al-Maliki step down as prime minister. And despite the fact that the Iraqi List led by Iyad Allawi has won a majority of votes in that election, the al-Maliki and cunning maneuver may Akspah position at the end. As the civil conflict that flared up after the U.S. invasion directly threatened the democratic project as a whole. The reason leading to this conflict is that one of the factions that ruled the country since ancient times did not accept the democratic standards that gave power to the range and the other of the Kurds. In addition, the sudden change of political system is authoritarian to a democratic system did not give the opportunity for the majority to preparing for such a transformation. Eight of freedom of expression and regulation in the Constitution of the post-Saddam forces caused the emergence of new Islamic believes in the rule of God more than faith in human virtue. In the debate that preceded the writing the draft constitution, demanded that these groups - led by Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani - sharia law to be a source of legislation, but that did not happen because Washington and the Kurds were against him. There are two sectors have fallen victim to the power of political Islam and society is liberal, which develops in Iraq are women and minorities. In its efforts to build a new Iraqi society, said Washington and its allies on the status of women through faith in the impossibility of establishing democracy in a country that lacks a fair representation of women. At first it seems that women are well represented in the ranks of power, but with the passage of time, the growing influence of Islamic groups under the participation of women in government. For example, in May 2006, there were four women ministers out of ninety-three ministers in the government, all of them have the portfolios is not important. In daily life, many women are exposed to harassment for not adhering to what is considered proper Islamic dress. Also increased the violence against women - including murder and kidnapping, rape and other forms of sexual assault - significantly in the post-Saddam Iraq. In addition, women's rights activists are also accused of trying to impose foreign values ​​and secularism. In this way has left a woman again, "outside of state control and supervision, and a victim of the interpretations of the negative of the laws of Islamic law and customary."
was not the fate of minorities better off, where they managed a field studies in 2007 to the conclusion is that the Christian communities and Yazidis and Sabean Mandaeans in Iraq was under threat and that the majority of Christians have fled their homes and half of them went out of the country. The report confirms that Christians and other religious minorities and ethnicity have been the object of violence and discrimination because they are non-Muslims or Kurds. It is ironic that the violation of the rights of Christians and other religious minorities has reached its peak before the eyes of the U.S. military.
For their part, sought the Kurds - since the founding of the Kurdistan Regional Government in 1992 - to portray themselves in Iraq and other countries in the region as a model of democratic and based it on that to the absence of internal fighting among themselves since the nineties, and elections to the province and the transfer of power from government to another smoothly, and to provide freedom of expression and regulation. In fact, the Kurds are still a democracy is the strongest than in other parts of Iraq and the reason for this is due to the slow pace of developments in the region and to the fact that the framework of democratic institutions has not imposed on them from abroad. Also, the Islamic parties were much weaker than in Kurdistan, in central Iraq.
Arab uprisings that broke out the end of 2010 triggered the debate again in the United States and the Arab world about the form of democracy in Iraq. There are those who believe that the uprisings inspired by the Iraqi model and the promotion of democracy in Iraq, while others doubt it. The late Anthony Shadid of The New York Times more negative, where he says "For me, the war in Iraq and its invasion in 2003, followed by what may cause a delay in the spring of the Arabs, as the uprisings that swept the region could get an early time would otherwise sweep." That the Iraqi model of democracy is a weak model can not be emulated by other Arab countries because of civil strife that accompanied the birth and because it seems to dictate a Western artificial and lacks the originality and to the permanence. However, there is nothing that can be learned from the Iraqi experience is that the ruling could be the worst oppression and dictatorships can be eliminated once we overcame the barrier of fear. In this sense, the developments that have occurred in post-Saddam Iraq has been a catalyst for revolutions in the Arab countries in spite of Astgragaha eight years to mature.

New York Times