Leifur

How do you or other Iraqi´s feel about this system beeing implemented? In many countries welfare systems are opposed as the money to pay for them are payd from the taxes of the people, often resulting in very high taxation in many countries. That hinders growth and thus actually creates the need for welfare (unemployment and etc.) for many as higher taxes mean less consuption and investment wich mean less work available. Often welfare system are also opposed as they result in social changes and in fact some have called them part of social engineering strategies. For example if there is a good welfare system to help single moms, such a system creates the incentive for women to become single moms, wich undermines the traditional family. Such systems are probably instrumental in the moral crumble of many western countries. Many say that it is neccasery for a nation to help its lesser brothers, through such welfare systems, and although they are implemented in a leftist way, people often cite religious morality as the basis for such systems, that good muslims, good christians and etc. should take care of their lesser brothers. Others say that if the government steps into this role, they are in effect taking the place that religious and charity organizations should have in helping them. And thus undermining religion and even basic compassion to other humans, as people stop beliewing they are responsible for helping their fellow citizens, instead they dump the responsibility on the government and thus walk away from the people dying in the streets and think: "the government should do something" instead of doing something themselves. This mentality has probably also helped to undermine morality in the West. I am not saying that I am against government help for the poorest, I am just wondering how this system will be implemented and how big portion of the Iraqi people are eligable for help. Is it not true that there is about 80% unemployment? Hardly is Iraq rich enough to help all its people that are in need is there? About Iraq welfare system, does the government still pay food for the people through the system created by the food-for-oil system? And about helping the old people how many do you beliewe of the old, retired people of Iraq collect pension from the government like talked about in the article I posted? That is get 80% of their wages while they were working in retirement? The article states that such a system are bound to head to trouble, if they ain´t allready there, as it will become increasingly costly with more older people every day. Are you worried that it will maybe become too expensive for the government in the future, so the government should reform the system so that kind of problems could be avoided? Many countries that have reformed their systems have got rid of this government guarantee for retirees, although ensuring the rights of those allready in the old system. Instead they have created systems that are based upon the basic principle of instead of retirees beeing payd from future earnings of the government the workers save a fixed proportion of their income over the whole working life to create a huge fund (savings plus interests) to live of when they retire. Would you beliewe such a system could be good for Iraq? Should such a system bee adopted instead of the current system, and if so how do you think it be? And how do you think would be the best way to transform the current system into such a system? Or do you beliewe current system is better and if so why? This kind of questions Iraqi´s need to start thinking about, that is one of the pillars of democracy. Dictators do not call the shots any more so people can now critizise the government and bring forth their own ideas of how things should be. How do Iraqi´s beliewe things should be, and more specifidly, how do YOU beliewe things should be?

What should the policies of the new Iraqi government be? What issues are in the most urgent need for reform, and what is neccasery to change now for the long term good of the country and to ensure future stability? Most would say that security and stability are the most important things, but what do Iraqis and others beliewe to be the best ways of ensuring them? Or other problems facing Iraq, when they can allow themselves the luxury to think about them when the current situation has calmed? Is it maybe neccasery to take long term decisions today to ensure stability and peace? One of the issues facing the whole region and could be instrumental in creating stability is how to take care of the old people. Most countries in the world have created pension systems that ensure that old people that have lost the ability to work can have money to live of. How they are and for whom they are intended is very different from each country to other. How should Iraq´s pension system be? Here is an article that could be relevant into that discussion called: Urgent Pension Reforms Needed in the Middle East and North Africa WASHINGTON, August 23, 2005 - Pension systems in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) are under growing financial stress and urgently need reform, according to a new World Bank report released today called Pensions in the Middle East & North Africa: Time for Change. The report-the first ever regional review of more than 30 pension systems in 13 countries1 - calls for a series of measures that would allow governments to gradually reform their unsustainable pensions systems, and thus avoid future crises. According to the new report, pension systems in the region face problems in terms of limited coverage, fragmented administration, and system design that negatively affect incentives and equity. The report suggests that pensions systems try to offer too much in terms of benefits. On average, full-career workers would receive a pension of nearly 80 percent of earnings before retirement. This is much higher than the pension promise in 24 high-income countries (as well as 10 countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia and 9 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean), where pension represents on average 57 percent of pre-retirement earnings. "Pension crises are often associated with an aging population, which is misleading. In the MENA region, where 60 percent of the population is made up of young people, pension systems are already facing financial problems," says Christiaan Poortman, World Bank Vice President for the Middle East and North Africa. "So, the problem is structural, not demographic. The time for change is now. Postponing pension reforms will require dramatic adjustments in the future and it implies transferring the cost of reform to future generations," he adds. Progress on pension reform has been uneven across the MENA region. Some countries like Algeria, Libya, and Syria are in the very early stages of the reform process or have not yet initiated discussions. In other countries like Iran, Iraq, Tunisia, and Yemen, policy discussions are more advanced but a coherent strategy has yet to emerge. Djibouti, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, and the West Bank and Gaza, on the other hand, have made strides in pension reform, drafting progressive pension laws or introducing structural reforms. The report urges countries in the early stages of reform, to conduct a proper assessment of the financial problems facing the systems. Without this baseline, it is not possible to initiate discussions about the costs and benefits of alternative reform packages. In other countries, the immediate goal is to move from strategic guidelines to a detailed reform concept, which will require further analytical work and consensus building. The remaining group needs to consolidate an integrated reform strategy and move toward implementation. "MENA countries vary in terms of their political and economic conditions, but pension systems across the region share important design and structural problems," says David Robalino, a senior economist at the World Bank and lead author of the report. "It is possible to formulate a set of minimum standards that any reform program will have to meet; the specific content of these programs clearly will have to reflect social preferences and to be consistent with the local economic environment." The report highlights that all the countries have earnings-related pension systems, financed on a pay as-you-go basis, which date back to the late 1960s and early 1970s. No changes to the structure of the systems have been introduced since then. These systems cover, on average, 30 percent of the labor force. Despite these relatively modest coverage levels and the fact that only 5-10 percent of the elderly receive a pension, spending as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) are already in the 1-3 percent range, which is high given the share of the elderly population. Although there are important differences in demographic structure, all countries in the region share a relatively young population. A rapid increase in old-age dependency ratios will take place only after 15 to 20 years. However, independent of the aging process, pension systems will eventually run into trouble. The future aging of the population will simply make things worse. Most funds are accumulating large and unsustainable unfunded pension liabilities, which in the absence of reform, will have to be financed by future generations. In addition, pension systems are hampered by policies that weaken incentives and arbitrarily redistribute income between plan members. The administration of pensions is fragmented, often with two or more schemes for different groups of workers. This is costly and limits the mobility of the labor force. The report also highlights governance issues that promote risky investment policies that do not necessarily benefit plan members. The report also addresses the issue of gender equality within the pension systems. It shows that pension laws across the region have attempted to provide women with more flexible retirement decisions and more secure survivor benefits, driven by the assumption that men are the principal breadwinners. This feature of the law, however, also makes women more vulnerable to pension reform. Indeed, if the goal is to have a pension law that treats women and men equally, then adjustments are likely to affect women more than men. Thus policy makers will need to devise mechanisms that address the potential impact of pension reforms on women. "International experience with reforms over the past ten years show that there's no single recipe for reform-that countries can mix and match different elements of an effective pension system, based on their own needs," says Robert Holzmann, Director of the World Bank's Social Protection Unit and a leading international authority on pension reform. "What also emerges is the continued need to reduce poverty, eliminate the risk of rapidly falling living standards, and protecting vulnerable elderly people from economic and social crises." 1Algeria, Libya, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Tunisia, Yemen, Djibouti, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, and the West Bank and Gaza. To see more information on the Bank's work in the area of pensions, visit: www.worldbank.org/pensions Despite all other problems facing Iraqi´s today, the problems pointed out in this article are also there and they will only become worse for each year that passes. How do Iraqi´s beliewe this problem should be solved? Many politicians claim it is enough to solve a problem to throw public money at it, is that the solution? Others say that the best solution is to allow people to use their own money instead of having the government taking it away from them through taxation and dictating where the money should go. That choise has not been for Iraqi´s and other Middle Eastern people for decades, as the oil wealth fills the public coffers, wich are then used by the government without the people having anything to say about it. Democracy will only solve that problem partly as politicians that are not dependent on the population for funds are not responsible enough towards the population and it brings home the danger of favoritism and eventually the undermining of Democracy like we see in many other Middle Easter countries. Now when Iraqi´s have a permanent government it is time for them to tell them what they should do and how in solving the various problems facing the country. It is time for Iraqis to start thinking for themselves how to solve the problems as I know they can. Take your destiny in your own hands!!!

Greetings Iraqis, here is an article taken from the magazine Reason, it is about a new Iraqi/arabic website, that promotes classical liberalism/libertarianism, like stated I beliewe here: مصباح الحرية مصباح الحرية هي منظمة غير ربحية لا تتبع لأي حزب، وعملها تعليمي يسعى إلى طرح آراء الحرية في المجتمع لصانعي القرار، والمراقبين، ورجال الأعمال، والطلاب، ووسائل الإعلام في الشرق الأوسط. ومن أجل هذا الهدف سوف تنشر مصباح الحرية مقالات رأي، وتقارير خاصة بالسياسات، وترجمات لأعمال هامة. مصباح الحرية هي مبادرة لمشروع جاك بيرن حول الحرية في الشرق الأوسط، حيث يهدف إلى نشر الأفكار المتعلقة بحريّة وكرامة الإنسان في جميع أنحاء الشرق الأوسط. ومن خلال الكتب، والصحف، وشبكة الإنترنت، وغيرها من الأدوات باللغة العربية، سوف يجلب المشروع إلى شعوب الشرق الأوسط رسالة عن الحرية، والمبادرة في إقامة المشاريع، والتعاون السلمي ليحلّ مكان الحكم الاستبدادي، والتبعية، والصراع الذي ميّز جزءاً كبيراً جداً من تجربتهم. آخر خبر if I understand things correctly the above text is a translation of this text: Lamp of Liberty The Lamp of Liberty is a non-profit and non-partisan educational advocacy project that promotes ideas of liberty and freedom in the Middle East society, to its policy makers, observers, businessmen, students, and the media. It makes available in the Arabic language important articles, books, essays, and detailed policy studies. The Lamp of Liberty hopes to create a dialogue between individuals in the Middle East and the rest of the world on the ideas that underpin a free society and the universal aspiration for freedom. It will publish opinion articles in Arabic newspapers, present policy reports, and translate important works by Frederick Bastiat, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, F. A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, Leonard E. Read, Hernando de Soto, Fareed Zakaria, Julio H. Cole, Mario Vargas Llosa, David Hume, Voltaire, and Ibn Khaldun, among others. Topics include classical liberalism, the rule of law, civil liberties, property rights, economic freedom, religious toleration, free trade and globalization, the division of labor, individual rights, limited government, challenges of democratization, and the role of institutions in economic and social development. If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions, please contact us at misbahalhurriyya@gmail.com. But here is the article in its whole, enjoy: Jonathan Rauch Odd though it may sound, somewhere in Baghdad a man is working in secrecy to edit new Arabic versions of Liberalism, by the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, and In Defense of Global Capitalism, by the Swedish economist Johan Norberg. He is doing this at some risk of kidnap, beating, and death, because he hopes that a new Arabic-language Web site, called LampofLiberty.org—MisbahAlHurriyya.org in Arabic—can change the world by publishing liberal classics. Odder still, he may be right. Interviewed by email, he asks to be known by a pseudonym, H. Ali Kamil. A Shiite from Iraq's south, he is an accomplished scholar, but he asks that no other personal details be revealed. Two of his friends have been killed in the postwar insurgency and chaos, one shot and the other "slaughtered." Others of his acquaintance are in hiding, visiting their families in secret. He has been threatened for working with an international agency. Now he is collaborating not with foreign agencies but with foreign ideas. He has made Arabic translations of all or parts of more than two dozen articles and nine books and booklets. "None," he says, "were previously translated, to my knowledge, for the simple reason that they are all on liberalism and democracy, which unfortunately have little audience and advocators in the Middle East, where almost all publishing houses and press outlets are governmental—i.e., anti-liberal." Kamil's work is anonymous out of fear, not modesty. Translating Frederic Bastiat's The Law, he says, took 20 days of intense labor. "I am proud of that, especially when I knew that the book has never been translated before. This is one of the works my heart is aching for not having my name in its front page." Asked how he began this work, he recounts meeting an American who was lecturing in Baghdad on principles of constitutional government. The message struck home. "Yes, you could say I am libertarian," Kamil says. "I believe in liberty for all, equality and human rights, freedom and democracy, free-market ethics, and I hate extremism in everything. I believe in life more than death as being the way to happiness." The American was Tom G. Palmer, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute in Washington and a man who cares a lot about books. (So much so, that he always walks around with a satchel full of them.) When the Soviet Union fell, he worked on making key liberal texts available in Russian and the languages of the former Soviet Bloc. How can democracy and markets thrive, after all, without the owner's manual? In 2004, Palmer traveled to Iraq for an education-ministry conference on reforming the schools. Having expunged compulsory Baathist education, the Iraqis were figuring out what came next. "They desperately wanted something different from what they had," Palmer says. Like many Albanians and Romanians he met after the Soviet Union collapsed, Iraqis pulled him aside to tell stories of family members harassed or killed by the fallen regime. The strikingly ubiquitous statues and images of Saddam Hussein testified to how thoroughly the Baathist dictatorship had dominated intellectual life. Intellectual isolation is a widespread Arab phenomenon, not just an Iraqi one. Some of the statistics are startling. According to the United Nations' 2003 "Arab Human Development Report," five times more books are translated annually into Greek, a language spoken by just 11 million people, than into Arabic. "No more than 10,000 books were translated into Arabic over the entire past millennium," says the U.N., "equivalent to the number translated into Spanish each year." Authors and publishers must cope with the whims of 22 Arab censors. "As a result," writes a contributor to the report, "books do not move easily through their natural markets." Newspapers are a fifth as common as in the non-Arab developed world; computers, a fourth as common. "Most media institutions in Arab countries remain state-owned," the report says. No wonder the Arab world and Western-style modernity have collided with a shock. They are virtually strangers, 300 years after the Enlightenment and 200 years after the Industrial Revolution. Much as other regions may be cursed with disease or scarcity, in recent decades the Arab world has been singularly cursed with bad ideas. First came Marxism and its offshoots; then the fascistic nationalism of Nasserism and Baathism; now, radical Islamism. Diverse as those ideologies are, they have in common authoritarianism and the suppression of any true private sphere. Instead of withering as they have done in open competition with liberalism, they flourished in the Arab world's relative isolation. Palmer's first thought was to launch a think tank in Iraq, but that fizzled when the institute's prospective president bailed out at his wife's urging, for fear of his life. Last April, Palmer returned to Iraq to give talks on constitutional and free-market principles. At one such talk he met Kamil. Returning to Washington, Palmer connected with other liberal Arabs and, with their help, began commissioning translations: of Bastiat, Mises, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Voltaire, David Hume, F.A. Hayek, and such influential contemporary writers as Mario Vargas Llosa and Hernando de Soto. Most of this stuff has either been unavailable in Arabic or available spottily, intermittently, and in poor translations. In January, MisbahAlHurriyya.org made its Internet debut. Today it hosts about 40 texts; Palmer aims for more like 400, including a shelf of books. (It currently offers an abridged edition of Hayek's Road to Serfdom and Bastiat's The Law. The Norberg book is coming soon.) Sponsored by the Cato Institute, it joins a small but growing assortment of Arabic-language blogs and Web sites promulgating liberal ideas. "The Internet is a historical opportunity for Arab liberalism," Pierre Akel, the Lebanese host of one such site, metransparent.com, said in a recent interview with Reason. "In the Arab world, much more than in the West, we can genuinely talk of a blog revolution." The Internet provides Arab liberals with the platform and anonymity that they need; helpfully, Arabic-language blogware, developed by liberal bloggers, recently came online for free downloading. During the recent controversy over a Danish newspaper's publication of cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed, an Egyptian blog, EgyptianSandMonkey.blogspot.com, made a splash by pointing out that no one had protested when the same cartoons had previously been published on the front page of an Egyptian newspaper—and by calling, sardonically, for a Muslim boycott of Egypt. (The site boasts a "Buy Danish" sticker.) Since the 1950s, the U.S. State Department (and the former U.S. Information Agency, now folded into State) has steadily commissioned and published Arabic translations of American books, including a sprinkling of political classics, such as The Federalist Papers. Its translation programs are run by the embassies in Cairo and Jordan. According to Alberto Fernandez, of the State Department's Near Eastern Affairs Bureau, a third program, managed from Washington and still fledgling, seeks to bring translated books to Iraq. Those print editions, worthy though they are, are subject to the vagaries of commercial book distribution, which is decidedly spotty in the region. The U.N. report notes that in the Arab world—a region of 284 million—a book that sells 5,000 copies qualifies as a best-seller. The Internet, in contrast, makes possible worldwide, instant distribution, at a nearly negligible cost. MisbahAlHurriyya.org relies heavily on volunteers and donated Web services; its budget, says Palmer, is in the five figures. Thanks to e-mail, conferring and passing manuscripts between Washington, Baghdad, and Amman—a logistical nightmare in the days of mail and fax—is a cinch. The site, entirely in Arabic, advertises on the popular Arabic Web sites Albawaba.com and Aljazeera.net. The whole enterprise was impossible a decade ago. Firmly establishing liberal ideas took centuries in the West, and may yet take decades in the Arab world. Authoritarian and sectarian and tribalist notions are easier to explain than liberal ones, and it is inherently harder to build trust in mercurial markets and flowing democratic coalitions than in charismatic leaders, visionary clerics, and esteemed elders. The liberal world's intellectual underpinnings are as difficult to grasp as its cultural reach is difficult to escape. Thus the disjunction within which Baathism, Islamism, and Arab tribalism have festered. Yet few who are genuinely intellectually curious can read J.S. Mill or Adam Smith and come away entirely unchanged. The suffocating Arab duopoly of state-controlled media and Islamist pulpits is cracking—only a little bit so far, but keep watching. In the Arab world, the Enlightenment is going online. © Copyright 2005 National Journal Jonathan Rauch is a senior writer and columnist for National Journal and a frequent contributor to Reason. The article was originally published by National Journal.

Hello dear proud Iraqis, I am a foreigner who is very interested in the developments in your great country, pleace answer few of my questions and give a feedback on my ideas. I have been posting similar ideas on this thread now, as it seems MR. Chalabi has been talking about as can be seen here abowe. Have his ideas been implemented in any way, are they popular among the Iraqi people and is there any change the ideas will be implemented? Now I understand that he was not part of the slate that was most succesful in the least election like last time, is there any change he will be in position to see his ideas through in the new government, or any one else that has similar ideas? How do you beliewe the new government will distribute and use the oil fees? Is the central government that has the power over the oil money or do the local governments of the municipialities or cities or such have any power over that money? Pleace answer my questions, getting information about the situation in Iraq is harder than it should be. There is one more question, that I would like to know, that is how is the current pension system in Iraq and is it the same as during Saddam´s reign? How is that system? Do everybody get pensions from the government, or do people have to be responsible for their own money when they stop working because of old age? Do companies in Iraq generally pay pension or do people generally put aside small amount of every paycheck to use when they stop working? If there is no offical pension system in Iraq or there was not under Saddam, pleace listen and then comment on my idea for such a system in Iraq. In many western countries pension is becoming one of the worst problems their governments face, but it is a problem most politicians don´t want to face because of how unpopular the neccasery changes are. My country, Iceland, and the oil rich country Norway are not facing the same problems as most other european countries because we do not have a pay-as-you-go system that is becoming a heavy burden on countries like Germany, France and strangely enough the US. Norway´s pension system is like I have mentioned here before something the Iraqi people could learn a lot from, as they divert most of their oil wealth into a huge fund that pays peoples pensions when they stop working. Strangely enough their funds are not as big as my countries (relatively speaking when population is taken into account) pension funds, even though we don´t have any oil or other kinds of natural resources (except fish wich the Norweegians have a lot of too), our system is about saving for old age, that is we pay into funds our whole life a portion of our monthly wages, and when we become old we draw those money back, wich in the meantime has grown by investments. I beliewe the UK system is similar although I beliewe it is a little more individualistic in the sense that those pension funds are not cooperatively owned like here in Iceland. Actually we and even norway are going more into such privately owned pension accounts on top of the bigger collectively owned ones (here) and publicly owned (in Norway) similar to the Chilean pension system, often considered the world´s best. I am talking about this because I beliewe the Iraqi people should learn from the best and most succesful nations because they are destined to be so too. And by learning from my country, from Norway and most importantly from Chile, Iraq could find a way to prevent one of the biggest problems facing many countries today and finding a way to return the oil wealth to the people of Iraq withouth the politicians getting to much power over them, thus hindering corruption and making the government more accountable to the people instead of become again subject to the resource curse befalling most oil rich countries, most notably Iraq´s neighbours. So my idea is to take the best pieces from each of those system and my conclusion is this: Iraq´s oil wealth should be split between all citisens of Iraq living in the country (to ensure the return of those living in the diaspora) monthly, before the governments (central and local) can have acces to the money. Then the money would be put into pension accounts on the name of each Iraqi to be saved and invested by the bank and investment corporation of the recipent´s choosing, but before the money would hit the account the government would be allowed to tax that amount as any other income of the individual, but the people would get a monthly update from the bank on how much he owns in the bank, how much he got and how much the government took of it (thus making the government accountable) and how much interests the bank is giving him on his investments. As many Iraqis do not have any fixed income because of high unemployment there should be no limitations on them to take the money out of the bank, but they should be encouraged not to do so by making it clear they will not get any other pensions than this money and others they put aside into that account of their wages (those that have work) over their working life. The oil will thus ensure the stability and prosperity of Iraq instead of beeing a curse, by creating savings that will encourage investments and the development of the Iraqi economy, it will in this way make it clear to each Iraqi how much money the government is spending and thus help him to question how good work the politicans are doing like people in countries that do not have such enormous natural resources can do by comparing their taxes with the services the government is providing with that money. But maybe most importantly it will ensure the good care of the poor Iraqis of today and the old now and in the future withouth having them dependant on the government. The development of such a system is though of course a little more complicated if Iraq has allready a pension system, but changing from one to another is not impossible although it should not be done in a haste, but slowly so nobody will be left cheated of his rights.

Congratulations on the elections today, it seems to be going mostly well and peacefully, hopefully that will continue. I pray to God that your elections will continue peacefully and will give results acceptible to the people of Iraq. Pleace tell me mr. BahirJ and others, do these parties on your list here abowe have any special economic policy and then what? Are there any parties with Laissez-faire economic policy or other kinds of market economy aproach? Is there any parties that want a big role for the government in the economy or even a socialist style planned economy? Is there no politician or political parties that talk about economic freedom of Iraqis, privatization or any thing like that? What about Al-Chalabis ideas of distributing the oil wealth among the people, is he still talking about that, and is that beeing popular? How is he planning on implementing that policy? Here is an article I found here, very good, and I wanted to share. I highligthed a portion that interested me greatly, pleace comment on this article and specially answer the questions put forward in the higlighted box: With the Iraqi election campaign in full swing one may wonder why the international media are paying such little attention to an exercise the outcome of which is likely to have a major impact on political developments throughout the region. The Dec. 15 election is not the first democratic exercise of its kind in Iraq after liberation. Since 2003 the Iraqis have held municipal elections in all but four of their 18 provinces. A nationwide general election, the first of its kind in the nation’s history, was held last January. And in October almost 10 million Iraqis turned up to vote in a constitutional referendum. The coming election, however, is different for a number of reasons. To begin with it is held within the framework of the new Constitution. Unlike last January when the Iraqis elected an interim government with a limited mandate, this time they will be choosing a parliament and a government with a full constitutional mandate for a four-year period. The second reason why this election is more important is that it offers the Iraqis a choice of rival political and economic models. This was not the case in last January’s election which focused on constitutional issues that, to some Iraqis, appeared rather abstract and thus removed from their daily concerns. With the federal system already envisaged by the Constitution the Iraqi electorate would have to focus on the different economic and social policies on offer. Should Iraq remain an oil-based rentier state in which the chief task of the government is to provide a minimum of welfare? Or should it aim at building a proper capitalist system based on free enterprise and competition with the role of the state reduced to a bare minimum? Yet another reason for the special importance of the coming elections is that it will be fought not by big coalition blocs designed to blur ideological differences, but by parties and alliances fighting under clear ideological banners. The January election was dominated by Shiite and Kurdish bloc votes that limited the options for forming the new government. This time there are no such bloc votes and numerous combinations for coalition could become possible. The exercise will provide an accurate photography of the state of opinion in Iraq today. Also important is fact that Arab Sunnis are determined to take part in the election. In the previous electoral exercises in Iraq more than half of all Arab Sunnis chose to stay home either because they feared for their lives or believed that the dominant Shiite-Kurdish alliance was offering them a rough deal. This time, however, a large Arab Sunni turnout is expected and, if it materializes, could alter the political landscape in Baghdad. The election merits special attention for yet another reason. It is specifically designed to produce a government whose first task would be to negotiate the terms under which the US-led coalition forces would remain in Iraq. Whatever deal is worked out would end the persistent confusion that is exploited by Saddam nostalgics for attacking both the coalition and the new Iraqi leadership. In legal and technical terms the occupation of Iraq by the US-led Coalition ended in June 2004 with the transfer of sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government. But Saddam nostalgics both in the region and in the West have continued to speak about “occupation” and make a song-and-dance about US imperialism wearing the mask of liberator. The government that will be formed in Baghdad early next year would be able to counter those claims by negotiating a clear basis for the continued presence of the coalition forces — a presence that is certain to be needed at least until 2007. There is no doubt that as voting day approaches, terrorists and insurgents will step up their murderous attacks just as they have since liberation. These attacks, however, are clear signs that the insurgents and terrorists lack a genuine popular base in Iraq. Had they had such a base they would have had no need of blowing up Iraqi shoppers in a market or Iraqi children in a primary school. Rather they would have mobilized their base for a massive turnout on Dec. 15 to vote pro-insurgent candidates in. Terrorism is always practiced by those who know that they cannot win power through the ballot box. What is remarkable is that the continued terrorist campaign has not succeeded in encouraging the fear-and-security reflex among the Iraqis, something which would have most favored traditional right-wing parties. I may be proved wrong but my guess is that Iraq’s secularist parties of the center, both right and left, are likely to do far better than they did in last January’s general election. Today, Iraq is the only country in the region where all shades of opinion can freely compete for power through elections. From Trotskyites on the far Left to the pan-Arabists on the far Right, and passing by Islamist, monarchist, liberal, socialist and democratic parties, the entire spectrum of opinion and ideology is on offer in Iraq. It is also the only country where ideas and policies that could land their exponents in jail or in front of firing squads elsewhere, are freely discussed in an open market-place of opinions and ideologies. All one needs to do is to ask what would happen to anyone who advocated a constitutional monarchy in the Islamic Republic of Iran; and where would a Social Democrat end up in Syria, not to mention the fate of an Islamist in Tunisia and a Liberal in Libya. The Iraqis are beginning to enjoy what few Muslim nations have ever enjoyed: An opportunity to debate all issues in full freedom and without fear. Iraq is going through a learning process symbolized by party conferences, debates between rival candidates, radio and television talk-shows, election rallies and endless political talk in private homes, teahouses, offices and farms. By all accounts this ought to be an interesting news story. And, yet, it isn’t — especially in the West. This story is not properly covered in the region because the despots still in power in most places do not wish to whet the appetite of their own subjects for freedom and pluralism. The story isn’t covered in the West for two reasons. The first is that many ethnocentrists, masquerading as multiculturalists, believe that Arabs are genetically incapable of building open societies. They don’t wish to admit it, but deep down they believe that the “normal” system for Arabs is more like the one that Saddam Hussein built and not the one that the new Iraqi leaders are trying to build. It is useless to tell people that nobody is imposing democracy on Iraq and that what is happening is the removal of impediments to democratization. These often well-meaning individuals firmly believe that the Arabs must be left to stew in their own juices. The second reason why the Iraqi election story is not covered is that many influential figures and groups in the West are so imbued with hatred of George W. Bush and Tony Blair, that they would rather see Iraq sink in a sea of blood than build anything resembling a normal society. These people want Iraq to fail because they want Bush and Blair, and in a broader sense, the “Anglo-Saxon” bloc to fail. As a result Western media viewers and readers miss a very good story — and a big piece of good news from a region where such blessings are rare.

I find this split into right, central and left wing parties interesting but it is accurate? I mean on what grounds do you base this split? Is a right wing someone that is rather religious (like sometimes tends to be the chase in western countries), a left wing someone that is against religion (like also sometimes tends to be the chase in western countries) and the central, there somewhere in between? Or do you use more traditional model of splitting the right winged into those who wants less government and less taxes and the left wingers into those who want more government control and higher taxes? Are there any purely ideological parties in Iraq today that follow policies like Capitalism and related political ideologies, wich is what I beliewe in is best for everybody: Conservatism varies depending between countries in its specific stances. In Western nations, conservatives often defend the status quo of capitalist practices. These are often called business conservatives. Many people who call themselves politically conservative, however, prefer a government-regulated capitalism (sometimes called "mercantilism") over free-market capitalism. According to them, free-market capitalism disrupts traditional ways of life and what they often call "family values". Thus, others might classify conservatives as being in favor of a mixed economy. Liberalism Because of the broad application of the word, not every "liberal" party makes support for unrestricted laissez-faire capitalism part of its ideology. However, most liberal parties over the course of the 20th century, have made the continuance of capitalism a primary objective, and have made free trade a centerpiece of their economic programs. In many contexts liberalism is synonymous with reduction in regulations, trade barriers and state monopolization, and liberalization is defined as the political and economic process of accomplishing these goals. Again the applicability is context dependent. Libertarianism, which can be considered a branch of classical liberalism, defends a capitalist free market with minimal state intervention. (See laissez-faire.) Minarchist libertarians see the role for government in the economy as solely defending the property rights of the participants against violence, theft, fraud, and damages such as pollution. Objectivism argues that capitalism is a social system based on the protection of individual rights, especially property rights, including the private ownership of resources or capital. It further argues that free markets are created by the rational actions of free men who act within the bounds of their unalienable, and rationally derived, rights. Anarcho- Capitalism sees no role for government whatsoever. They believe that all government functions, including physical security and the adjudication of commercial disputes, will be better achieved by market mechanisms, such as mercenary armies and private arbitration. So called Neo-Liberalism wich is mostly the same as liberalism and libertarianism mentioned abowe. Or are there any purely ideological parties who talk on more left wing grounds like: Socialism Social-democratism Fascism/Baathism Leftism Collectivism Communism Or any other ideological parties worth mentioning?

I forgot to log in, the abowe post is from me, the founder of this thread.

An "Ownership Society" on the Tigris A modest constitutional proposal: Why not give the Iraqi people a stake in their national oil endowment? by Lenny Glynn 09/06/2005 12:00:00 AM NOW THAT THE IRAQI PEOPLE'S ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES are actually trying to draft a new constitution, there is a single, central provision that any party or politician interested in shaping the country's future should seriously consider. This provision would, at a stroke, create a powerful, long-term force for democracy, national unity, and economic development--and counter the forces pushing for national fragmentation. It is, simply, to grant personal ownership of an equal share of future oil revenues to each and every individual Iraqi--Sunni, Shiite, Kurd, Christian, or secular--just as the State of Alaska shares surplus oil revenues earned through the Alaska Permanent Fund with its 600,000 citizens. To that end, an Iraqi political party or leader could declare that it seeks to write into the country's constitution a new national investment fund--call it The Iraqi People's Freedom Trust--which would be credited with a substantial share--a quarter, a third, even half--of all future Iraqi oil earnings. All 25 million-plus Iraqis--men, women and children--should to eligible to claim their own personal investment account in the Freedom Trust. All they would need do is prove Iraqi birth and pledge allegiance to the government. Adult citizens should be free, at any time, to ask for a calculation of their account's value and withdraw up to their full balance--no questions asked. The majority of assets, those held for minors (Iraq's median age is 19) would be held in trust, bearing interest, until the owners came of age. FOR THE FIRST TIME in the history of Iraq--indeed, in the history of oil nations generally--a new set of leaders would be offering every Iraqi citizen an ownership stake in the country's vast oil wealth. Iraq's 113 billion barrels of proven oil reserves and 3 trillion cubic meters of natural gas constitute a multi-trillion-dollar treasure. Yet this national patrimony, long-since nationalized--allegedly on behalf of the people--has been routinely abused and looted in the past. The promise to create a Freedom Trust would distinguish its proponents as genuine reformers, seeking to break with the old pattern of statist, top-down control of Iraq's natural resources, economy, politics, and society. As in many oil-rich nations, state ownership of Iraq's oil has long formed the material base for tyranny--enabling whatever faction controls the government to do what Bertolt Brecht once joked about: effectively dismiss its own people. By holding control over oil revenues that account for the vast majority of GDP--and for 95 percent of Iraq's foreign exchange earnings--Saddam Hussein's regime was empowered to dominate and manipulate civil society--doling out jobs, contracts, favors, and privileges, buying weapons, building palaces--while remaining wholly beyond popular accountability. In that negative sense, as in many other oil-rich nations, Iraq's black gold has been the key object--and corrupter--of Iraqi politics throughout the Saddam era up to and including the oil-for-food program administered by the United Nations. BY CONTRAST, any system that declares a significant share of Iraq's oil revenues to be the personal property of the Iraqi people would create a powerful material base for democracy. There would be a strong, hard-coded incentive for public accountability and transparency in the production and use of the nation's natural wealth. The precise institutional form that such a system might take is less important than the principle that Iraq's natural wealth should belong, by right, to its people. As Nobel Laureate Vernon Smith wrote two years ago in supporting the handover of all of Iraq's natural resources to popular ownership: "The details, if wrong, can later be repaired. The principle, once corrupted, can never be re-instated . . . the principle of individual ownership [must] be primary." The actual adoption of such a plan would have both immediate and compounding benefits. For example, it would give all Iraqi women direct, personal claims on wealth--a real first. It would also jump-start spending, investment, and bottom-up economic development even in remote regions. And it would do so much faster than any centralized, bureaucratic aid scheme. Poor and rural Iraqis, who have rarely seen a dime's worth of the wealth extorted by top-level Baathists, would have a strong incentive to register for accounts in the Freedom Trust and claim their fair share. Word of the first cash redemptions from the Trust would soon give all Iraqis--whatever their ethnicity, sect or tribe--an equal, bankable, and growing stake in the country's future stability--a "win-win" proposition, even for Sunnis--especially compared to the "zero-sum" or even "lose-lose" game of an unpredictable civil war. We're not talking small money here. Even amid ongoing war and sabotage, Iraq today pumps over 2 million barrels of oil a day--roughly $96 million a day--nearly $43 billion worth a year at $60 a barrel levels. A more stable Iraq could pump 5 million barrels a day or more--nearly $45 billion a year, even if prices were to fall to $25 a barrel. Even after accounting for the oil industry's costs and heavily-subsidized domestic consumption, crediting one quarter or more of future net revenues to a Freedom Trust would ensure every single Iraqi a growing wealth stream worth hundreds of dollars a year. That's serious money in a country whose per capita gross national product is calculated by the CIA at roughly $1,500. But it is hardly enough to risk creating a society of loafers anymore than the Alaska Permanent Fund has turned that state's population into indolent sheiks of the tundra. One other possible objection--that crediting a large share of oil revenues to the people would cripple the central government's finances--falls apart on its face. In the first place, Iraq's governance problems have stemmed from a state that is too swollen on oil money to take account of its own people. But crediting new flows to a fund would not cripple Baghdad's finances, anyway. To the contrary, it would effectively leverage those flows by jump-starting the fledgling market for Iraqi government bonds. Of $100 million that comes in, for example, granting $25 million to the fund might be instantly met with a $20 million purchase of government debt--leaving a $5 million cash reserve. The central government would have effective use of $95 million of the revenue--while the Freedom Trust holds $20 million in public debt and $5 million in cash. Since over half of all Iraqis are under 21--and so ineligible to withdraw their assets--only about $12.5 million could even potentially be asked for by the people--against the $5 million cash reserve. The Fund's cash reserve position, in short, would be multiple times that held against withdrawals by say, Citibank. Such details, however, can be worked out by Iraqi wonks. They are far less important than the political, economic and psychological impact that this provision would have on the Iraqi people. THE CONFLICT IN IRAQ is ripe for redefinition. Just as Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was a war-winning weapon--because it turned the Civil War from a sectional, "states rights" struggle to a morally clear crusade against slavery--the campaign to establish a Freedom Trust would redefine what's truly at stake in Iraq. Iraq's internal "insurgents" would be exposed, clearly, for what they are--a congeries of factions struggling to reestablish their power to loot Iraq's wealth. They form, bizarrely, what may be history's first "National Re-enslavement Front." "Oil for the People" could trump the appeal of Baathists and jihadis alike. Certainly it is a slogan--and a policy--that anyone can understand. If there is one thing that matches the universal appeal of freedom, it's the universal appeal of money. A Freedom Trust would marry Iraqis' hunger to breathe free, so heroically displayed by their votes last January, with the income and wealth-building to enjoy their freedom. We might even see the flowering of a hope that is all too rare in the Middle East--an attractive, predictable future--as Iraqi parents see wealth building up in trust for their kids--something those children might also note. Creating an "ownership society" along the Tigris could do more than fuel democracy in one country. It could set a worthy example for other oil-rich nations--from the Persian Gulf to Nigeria, Venezuela--in fact, to every nation where oil has become the property and plaything of the state elite. In Iraq itself, this single reform could help secure a lasting peace, grounded in commonsense, Rawlsian justice. After decades of tyranny and years of bloodshed, that is an outcome that would help, in some measure, to redeem the sacrifices that Iraqis, Americans and our coalition allies are now enduring. Lenny Glynn, Boston-based financial writer, has been a staff editor at BusinessWeek, senior writer at Institutional Investor and European bureau chief for Global Finance Magazine. Taken from the Weekly Standard

And thank you Salim once again for what you are doing, I guess you have translated the article, am I correct? Actually it was me who posted this, I just forgot to log my self in. But tell me, do you think such ideas would have better succes of beeing implemented if there was a strong leader in Iraq, or was I misunderstanding you? I wonder, would it not be enough of a discussion among the nation if he implemented those "reforms" and would then see how popular they would be in the next elections, that is where he can see weather he and his party will be popular for what it has done or not. Is the oil the only resource? It does not seem to be much money they are getting from it these days, so I suspect most of their money now comes from international aid, most notably from the US, am I not right? That could of course also be dangerous, the Egyptian government is not accountable to their people because they get all that money from the US, wich the government then uses to buy their power. If the oil revenues were put into individual accounts for each and every Iraqi (living in the country) to be used at will (or have some limits on what they can spend of it) they would see incentive in helping the oil to flow. Thus, little by little, when the oil revenues will go up, and the aid will go down, Iraqis will get more and more money to buy themselves daily services, like health care, schooling for the children (and others), life, disability and pension incurences and so on. In the same time, the government could little by little reduce what they pay directly for those services, f.e. by making the hospitals and schools financially independant, and then little by little reducing what they pay for each and every individual directly, and in turn, what each and every Iraqi, with their increased individual oil revenues, paying more and more and eventually they would pay all (or most) things directly. Then the government could sell the hospitals and the schools to their employees and others, who would then compete in providing Iraqis the best service and the cheapest prizes. Yaeh, that would be a slap in the face for the other oil rich countrie´s governments, showing their peoples that they don´t have to accept the governments robbery.

And Iceland. We sent two civilans (as we don´t have an army) from the coast guards bomb eradication team, who worked with the danish there. Under the old socialdemocratic government of Denmark, they would newer have sent their men to participate in the invasion, hopefully the government will not have to suffer for adding their numbers wich I think they are going to do soon (or was it the aussies?). But if any country should be called Old Europe, it is Denmark, with the worlds oldest flag in use and a very old, if not the oldest royal house in Europe. I just hope you are not celebrating a political victory to soon. One question, why is Bush adressing the EU as a independant identity, and as a whole instead of the various countries in Europe, weather members or not? Thankfully the EU is not a federation yeat, and God willing, newer will, but although I am not sure it will be good for us independant minded citizens of the various European countries having USA side with us in this struggle (although we tend to have more favorible opinions about Amerika than the Pan-European nationalists), but it is certeinly not good for us, and indeed not the US of A in the long haul promoting a united Europe. Or do you maybe think it will be simpler and better for the US just having to talk to a single, strong Europe instead of many strong independant countries? Texas gengtlemen, and others, pleace read this article and tell us your opinions: Time for regime change in Europe Best wishes from Iceland, Leifur Es. I am listening to country music while writing those words, Toby Keith´s Angry American, also his songs Beer for my horses, Time for me to ride, I miss Billy the Kid and with Tim McGraw, I should have been a cowboy. Also am I listening to Kenny Chesney, Back where I come from and Lonestar, When Cowboys didn´t dance...this is my favorite music these days.

This is yeah, a similar and in fact better idea than mine, using a model I did not know of, Alaska, wich is by far simpler than my thoughts. I am not sure though how far this will go, if he wants to privatatize those services provided by the government, including the food for oil money, but it seems at least that the government will not get their revenues directly from the oil, but indirectly through the taxes of the people and that is essentially the stabilizing factor needed. The thing is with countries like Iraq, Venezuela and other countries whose governments have their main revenue sources independant from their population they become corrupt. So what is possible to do to make them more like ,,normal" countries, whose government is accountable to their people, who see how much their spending is hurting their own revenues is to reform the property system first and foremost and try to distribute the money to the citizens first before it goes to the government. In normal countries, where the economy is based upon many pillars, and private entrepreunalship, the government must get its revenues from the people. F.e. is the situaton in Afganistan and Iraq very different, as Afganistan does not have many natural resources, so they must get their revenues from trade, agriculture and other kinds of productivity inside the country, and foreign help in the beginning propably. In fact if there is not a permanent solution to what to do with the oil money Afganistan is more likely to become a democracy than Iraq, unless they become a rental state (a state with independent revenues) through foreign help like Egypt. The danger there was newer too much centralization, quite the opposite, to much chaos, there needs to be found a balance. I like those ideas particularly as they will decrease the power of the central government in Bagdad, and they can increase the power of various levels of government in new Iraq, of the 18 districts and various cities and towns, who will all get revenues by taxing these and other income of the citizens, like in a ,,normal" country. Thus the potential for many different kinds of systems to arise within Iraq is great, maybe in some areas there will be high taxation and programs like the food program, public health and public schools (it depends though upon how much power each level will get over these issues, the more power at lower level the better in my opinion) and others still be run by the local government. In other areas the people will vote for more right winged aproach, having lower taxes and having to pay for schools, food, health care and such themselves. Thus this system can be something all the various powers within Iraq can agree on, instead of allways fighting for the top position to be able to distribute the oil wealth to their own people. What I saw in my ideas before I knew about those is the possibility of creating a right wing (libertarian, conservative) society, but as there is no guarantee that the top position is held by someone with such idealogy, this system is better as it will encourage people trying many different systems, wich will like in rest of the world in ,,normal" countries in my opinion and according to my political beliews will result eventually in a right wing aproach to most issues. The only limit on that aproach is that the oil sector will it seems not be privatized, and although idealogically I beliewe in privatization of all aspects of political and daily life but I can understand that the oil will not be privatized, specially as there will not be a political will for doing so. Then such a system is the next best thing and will result in Iraqis beeing prepared for the time when the oil will run out. So the downside is maybe that there will be still socialistic aproach to solving societies problem in many parts of Iraq, may be the whole of it, but the potential of doing it in libertarian and conservative (in euro-american meaning) way will still be there with such a system. Other kinds of downside, related to this is maybe such increased flow of money to Iraqis will discourage them to work and find themselfs education and participate in the armed forces and thus protecting their society. In way to many of the arab countries the natives are just used to sitting with their legs up in the air and having imported work force doing all the manual jobs and all though I know that Iraqis are far from beeing lazy, such system will maybe encourage lazyness like many of the socialistic ,,help" programs here in the west. My idea was more about helping people back to their feet but encouraging them to work and invest in education and their own health and future by encouraging steady growth in population instead of like our systems are discouraging growth, both economic and population, by all kind of social engineering that, although you do not call your self conservative in arab standards, you would thing way to liberal I beliewe. Things like subsidised daycere (kindergartens) and other such system that are pushing families to send both of the parents out to work and thus decreasing the birth rate so it is now in my country 1.9 per woman, less than the 2.1 that is neccasery for the population to replace itself, the situation is by far worse in other parts of Europe. The ultimate resource is in my opinion the human resource so there is no such thing as overpopulation, at least in most parts of the world.

Thank you, and sorry for the lenght of it, I hope in spite of my bad english you have been able to translate the main meaning of it to the beutiful language of Arabic. Salim, is the oil for food program still in effect in Iraq? One things a conservative society like Iraq can do is giving families the option of instead of sending their youngest kids to school for the money they get from the fund, they can use it to buy educational material and service maybe through the internet and thus essentially paying one of the parents, most often the woman (women?), if she fullfills some minimal education standards, has an internet connection in her home and something like that, for providing her kids, under certein age with the education they need. This system could also help distribute revenues between the many levels of government. The 18 provinces of Iraq, and all the numerous city and town counsils around the country can not have their revenues directly from the oil, and it would be dangerous if they would get their revenues directly from the government, as the distribution would be unfair and unbalanced, based upon the political supporf the politicians get in each area. Instead they will have to have a small tax on each households income, weather their direct income or if they want the income they get from the petroleum Fund (wich as I stated earlier will be mostly evenly distributed based upon pre made rules), wich they would use to pay for their communal affairs, roads maybe and such. Thus Iraqis can see on their paycheck and tax sheet how well their politicians are doing, that is if they do not get good enough roads instead of how high the tax rate is, they can consider electing new officials. Pleace tell me if this is possible or even feasible for Iraq. I wonder, what do Iraqis want from their new government? Not who does the job, but how it is done and on what principles? Libertarian, conservativ, kapitalistic, individualistic aproach to building the new Iraq, or socialistic, collectivistic aproach or a mix of all those and other political ideas? What is mainstream in the political spectrum in Iraq? Should the state provide most services, or should individuals provide them? What services should be provided by the market and what by the state? In what direction should the new Iraqi democracy go in political terms?

I hope it is ok for me, a non Iraqi posting on this interesting board. I have been following the situation in Iraq to the best of my ability, and I used to be rather optimistic. Actually I still am, Iraq and the Iraqi people have a tremendous potential. I am just conserned that, even though democracy is beeing rightfully founded, that it does not have enough foundation to stand on, one of wich is the bad state of the Iraqi economy. Although I know that there are a lot of entrepreunal Iraqis who run their private bussinesses, but it seems most of the factories and in fact most of the work force has been employed by the government, wich comes to little surprise having the main source of the wealth in the hands of the government, the oil. Most oil countries become so called rental states, that is as the revenue source is pretty independant of the population the government tends to become corrupt and undemocratic, most countries where oil is the main source of revenues are undemocratic, or on the road to tyranny like Venesuela. The only real oil country I know of that is not undemocratic (though the same party has had power over most of last century) is Norway, and I beliewe that is mostly due to they tend to be very cheap, that is even though they have billions in revenues they don´t use it, but store it under their pillows, so to speak, that is most of it goes into big publicly owned pension accounts wich use it to invest and pay old people pension. The government is thus not free to use the oil revenues for wathewer purpose they see fit, and have to draw much of their revenues from peoples taxes, wich are I beliewe rather uncommon in many oil countries. Saddam used the oil revenues to make his power more, mostly by buying his own people and divide and qonquer, putting people against each other, giving money hither and thither, to his own tribe to buy loalty, and to sunny muslim to buy their loalty and so on and so on. The worst thing that can happen is that there will be a new ruling class that will start pumbing money into their own communities to buy their loyalties. This happens in every country, elected officials or not, but is particularly dangerous in oil rich countries, wich seem to go toward dictatorship in the fight for the oil money. So my conclusion is that special precautions have to be done to limit the politicians power over the oil revenues, of wich I would like to get Iraqi´s and others views on and criticism and opinions if could work, why not if not, and how to make them work. First a Government Petroleum Fund into wich all the oil ravenus must go will have to be founded, wich will have open and thorough accounting system that all Iraqis (and others) can look into openly, maybe through the internet. From this fund then all money the government needs for running the things it has been limited to do, and that limit must be so that the government is only responsible directly for running few things like the police, armed forces and judicial branch. Most other things must be privatized. I know that this will be difficult in a country where the wealth is as unevenly distributed as Iraq and people are used to having the government providing for their all daily needs, even food so the transition will be difficult and will have to be done little by little. So one of the main function of the Fund will be to help the poor people of Iraq to get back on its feet. One of the things I noticed in last elections was how many of the parties described themselfs in one way or another as socialistic, that is they wanted the government to provide for the citizens, presumable with the oil ravenus, all promised they to keep everybody happy and prosporous, that is they were going to give everybody what they need, or think they need through big government projects, one of wich, like I saw in the agenda of some of the parties was to continue the oil for food project, thus keep the people still as beneficiars, essentially beggars, from the good politicians that are giving them the oil ravenus. We can obviosly see how dangerous that will be, having so much power in the hands of the politicians, that even the main food source is subject of their control. Here in my country, Iceland, there is constant struggle between the right and left, weather we should be helping everyone the same like the left wants, or like we on the right side of the political spectrum want, focus our limited money into helping the poor, mainly so they can get back to their feet so they will not have to get help any more. We do this mostly by say someone looses his health and ability to work, he gets a certein amount of money in help, but if he can work a little, for every extra crown (our currency, krónur) he works himselfs in, the help is reduced by some ratio, usually half crown for every crown he works himself in, beyond a special amount. Thus there are more money left to help those that can not work anything, and as the money is not cut completely off when they start working again they can start working as much as their health allows them. Similarly you could keep helping those that need food aid, but the help should be less and less in ratio to how much that particular family earns, that is for every dinar they earn beyond some minimum amount, the food aid should be decreased for like one/tenth of a dinars worth or something like that initially, but little by little that ratio should be made higher, so the program can be little by little fased out for most Iraqis. But most importantly it should be privatized. I guess that every family gets a voucher (is the system not still in effect, although the government has taken it over?) stating how much of wheat and milk powder and all the other things that are given through this program they are entitled to, wich they have to take to the distribution centers to collect the food. Those vouchers should be given out by the petroleum fund under strict distribution rules like I mentioned earlier, so the money for them newer goes directly through the government, as the fund will have an independant administration and pre made rules about how the money shall be spent. First the food distribution centers must be closed, and all the government employees fired that work in them, or better yeat, they are to be privatized, sold to those that want to run them. Every one that has a shop will then be allowed to sell those products instead of such food aid vouchers, wich they can then use to buy more food from the distribution centers, or the government in some way, or turned in for hard cash, thus privatizing one step in the food program, distribution. Next step will have to be to allow the shops to buy those food items independantly, not through the government or the petroleum trust fund, wich will little by little draw itself out of buying directly for the money. Similarly the government should not pay directly for schools, health care, running companys or anything else for that matter. People could get a loan from the fund, with small rates to pay for schools, and maybe a voucher directly for those that served in the armed forces to increase the incentive to serve. Those vouchers and loans will only be possible to use to buy education, by paying the schools, and they will have to be used by the schools to pay for everything, teachers wages, renovation of the school property and all that, and thus there will be a competition in education (a good school could have their rates higher than the voucher, so people would have to pay additionally from their own pocket) and thus the school would become independant from the government, although still, at least in the beginning, those that are owned by the government, publicly owned and maybe ruled by the a school board elected by the parents of those that are in that particular school for the younger kids, maybe by the students themselfs in others. Similarly the Fund could pay for health insurance or into semi-private accounts for every Iraqi (maybe less for those that are earning more money than others) whose function it is to pay for health service directly, thus providing competition in the healt industry. Thus doctors and hospital staff would not be on the government payrole anymore, having to compete in providing the best service in the cheapest manner, although, due to the economic situation in Iraq, the money comes initially from the government, but in this way the officials have no way of dictating how it is spent, thus reducing the possibility of corruption. And in same way the Fund could pay, against maybe small payment from the individual into pension accounts that will be invested until they retire and into accounts from wich people will have to draw their money if they suddenly loose their source of income, thus giving incentives to work, and marry and found families and propably other things. But one of the most fundamental thing so Iraqis can fullfill their potential and ancient role as the economic giant of their region (remember Babylon and its riches) is to recognise private property and reducing red tape and beurocratic barriers to buying land or getting your property recognised before the law, and to go into bussiness. The famous economist Hernando de Soto has started the Institute for Liberty and Democracy wich focuses on the lack of formal private property rights in most of the non-western world, resulting in powerty, corruption and crimes. His research on the situation in Egypt should be intriguing for Iraqis. I look forward to hear your thoughts about my ideas, hopefully you can excuse my bad english, best wishes, Leifur