The Liberalization Politics of Iraq - Essay Example

Liberalization and Iraq You're 15 May 2006 Introduction A historical perspective defines that the country of Iraq is markedly different from the post WWII era in comparison to how the people and body of the country is today. The politics have changed drastically and apparently the whole country is in a state of transformation. For the first time in political history since post WWII, Iraq has become free from dictatorship and has now become a country with the right to vote, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, and a myriad of other societal and political factors that are now being developed within this Middle Eastern land. This is a far cry from what previous eras had defined for the country. In present day the people of Iraq are alleviated from burdens of decades past. These burdens were emphasized to have been political rulings that had been placed on them in the form of cruel and cold dictatorships. The main focus now is in regard to what the political differences could be between this country and others, like Britain in particular. Also, what the exact characteristics of the country use to be in post WWII until now is another question that many are investigating and defining. So, it was the people as a whole society, and the past political differences into today that are the main focus of what is being defined in this literature. Liberalization and Iraq The history of Iraq speaks volumes in itself. Once known as the "Cradle of Civilizationi", it was given this title due to the diverseness of the land and the many ethnicities that were found there. Furthermore, there have been many conquerors of this land and thus many different political beliefs as well. From times dating back to 3360 it is found the Sumerians were in control of this region, then moving forward in time to 1534-1922 it is found that the Ottoman Empire (a Turkish power) ruled supreme over the territory thus influencing Iraq and its people to carry similar political beliefs of a Turkish belief systemii. This was of course until the Ottoman Empire collapsed during WWI and the British Political Party gained control over the region. However, times changed rather fiercely over a changing period, allowing for power of the land to continuously switch hands as wars took place (some religious and some between other countries), and various societal views changed. Nevertheless, the British Empire had a strong dominance in the Middle East for a good period of time. Furthermore, they had a good part to play in the Arab revolt that took place, due to the fact that they were trying to liberalize the politics and policies of the country and it simply wasn't something the Iraqi people wanted at that time. Therefore, the British forces realized that they were going to be up against a Muslim uprising due to their tactics. In many ways, this could be presumed to have been a form of independence instead of liberalization for the Middle Eastern part of the world, though not wholly so.iii It was during this period that there developed the identity of the Arabs and the Muslims. History shows that the Brits had the support of the Arabs on their side, which led to the religious war that was rather what took place in the Middle East during the period of WWI, WWII, and continuing on into post WWII. Obviously it was these very actions that led to the split in religious beliefs between Iran and Iraq. The Shiite, Kurd, and Sunni religions developed but what the Brits had hoped for did not take place as the Shiite people; nor any of the other groups were in favor of British political beliefs either and where found to be Anti-British just as much so as the Muslim Religious leaders wereiv. The reason for this was in a large part due to the huge religious differences between western thought (Britain) and the Iraqi's, as well as Iranian citizens. Some remarkable historical differences between Britain and the Iraqi people is the fact that the Iraqi's have lived their lives surrounded by religious monuments which have always held dominance in their belief systemv. These monuments have been known to be a communal identity among the Middle Eastern people, and a unique part of their heritage and culture. Western Idealists (British and American) have never understood this philosophy and therefore have never been able to relate to the thoughts of the Iraqi people in the correct manner that would include respect for their beliefs and understanding them. This is one of the main reasons that there have always been stark differences politically between Britain and other Western minded countries in comparison to Iraq. Therefore, during historic times and even somewhat present day liberalization has not been in the forefront of these religious groups minds. Historically, this is due to the fact that their political views were extremely varied from that of the British. If anything they wanted their own independence and religious beliefs left intact, along with wanting to be recognized as an independent force from British rule more than anything else. Of course this had an influence in WWII and following this Second World War as well, as the discord in the Middle East was escalating during this period and it was ultimately converging on the idea of a dictatorship ruling without the people even being fully aware of it happeningvi. Furthermore, historically it can be acknowledged that the rise of the religious view of Islam among the Muslims and Arab people took form long before the Ottoman Empire or Britain had any hand or say so over the land. This is of course the basic belief system and religious following that has remained with the people of the region for many, many decades, not changing as the political elements did so but remaining steadfast as a powerful source of strength and spiritual guidance for the people of the country. During these various changing times there have been a myriad of political shifts, as has been mentioned. An example of this is again in the period of WWII and post WWII, when the British took up an occupation in the land of Iraq to protect its political interests in India and Iranvii. This gives emphases that the European colonial powers had a strong influence in the land but the monarchy that they tried to establish failed as the beliefs of the Europeans (as has been stated) were not in correlation with any of the religious leaders views in Iraq nor Iran eitherviii. In 1920, Iraq was under the protection of Britain and it was then that they began the process of importing and exporting oil to other countries. Also, this era defines this country as finally becoming an independent nation under the guidance of British influence. For a good while the people of Iraq were free from any form of dictatorship and although they did protest and fight against the Israelis for regions of the Middle Eastern terrain, over all they were not considered a culture that was an antagonist of violence but rather one of a strong spiritual belief system. It would seem with the failure of the English Colonial monarchy, the future of Iraq changed not for the better but more towards a period of dictatorship (which has been stated) which was a political element that had been avoided for a certain amount of time. The idea of it developing was something that was not wanted by the people but appeared to be occurring anyway. It would seem that with the politics of Iraq being unable to be liberalized, it was becoming more obvious that the control of the country was leaning in a direction that the people were not fond of yet did not have the say so, as this research has been pointing outix The main problems that led to the formation of dictatorship were that of sociopolitical proportions because there were constant power struggles of a religious nature between the three different religious sectors in the region, which was briefly mentioned earlier in this research. Of course Britain has been blamed for many of the adversities that developed in the land during the WWII period because it is historically questioned whether or not the British Empire made promises to the leaders of Iraq and then retracted upon them, though it is not totally clear how true this really isx. These transformations took the form of a republican identity of independence but in reality it was during this time that control of the country was indeed progressively maturing to total dictatorship, which had been evolving for years. Of course this was right before Saddam Hussein became President in 1979xi. Now in present day, with four years having passed since the fall of the Baathist regimen and President Saddam Hussein as well, there are still avid differences among the Iraqi people, the country, and the idea of western philosophy with two particular nations standing outxii. These are the United States and Great Britain. The United States claims it has liberated Iraq, and Great Britain has stated its part in these actions. Indeed, it does appear that in today's era liberation for Iraq is the name of the political game as they have had electoral votes now and have even instated different primary political seats for positions in other states of the country. So it would appear that Iraq and especially Britain's view of liberation have fallen into the same type of stitched framework after so much history among these nations has transpired. The Iraqi people are finally free, and a certainty has been given by the United States and Great Britain that their country will never be under the thumb of a harsh dictator again. It would seem that these promises are going to hold to the truth because the changes in Iraq are openly noticeable. Their political identity has done a complete 110 turn to unite with similar beliefs throughout the globe. Although there are still differing opinions amongst the religious groups in Iraq and into Iran as well they are more united than they have ever been with non-Arab citizens finally feeling a sense of safety within the countryxiii. These new political parties that have risen up out of a crushed and down trodden country is a wonder to many nations who have lived in liberated lands for decades, and it is pleasing to find that they can finally have the sovereignty that they had been searching for, as leaders in Britain and the United States have publicly statedxiv In conclusion, although there is still a great road left to travel, mutual ideas have finally been met between Coalition forces and the country of Iraq through decades of conflict and differing opinions. However, the Iraqi people still hold onto their own religious views and many of their personal ideals just as any free country should have the right to do. Now it is just a matter of time until the true and total form of liberation takes root in the whole of the country. Notes 1. Conan, Neal, "Analysis: Tracing the History of Iraq from its Earliest Days of Civilization to the Present." NPR: Talk of the Nation, 19 Sept. 2002. 2. Choksy, Jamsheed, "A History of Iraq." International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 01 July. 2001. 3. Denver Rocky Mountain News, "The History of Iraq, Called The Cradle of Civilization, Has Been Fertile Ground for Upheaval and Conquest." Rocky Mountain News, 24 Feb. 2003. 4. Norris, Michelle, "Analysis: Fall of Saddam Hussein's Regime Leads to the Emergence of New Political Parties." NPR-All Things Considered, 22 Apr. 2003. 5. Nawa, Fariba, "Iraq: For Many Iraqi Teens, Life has Gotten Better with the Fall of Saddam Hussein's Regime, But Danger and Uncertainty Linger." Junior Scholastic, 01 Sept. 2003. 6. Zainab, Bahrani, "Iraq's Cultural Heritage: Monuments, History, and Loss." Journal of Art, 22 Dec. 2003. Read More