الدستور المعركه الكبرى..... الفدراليه,لماذا

[baghda]

الدستور المعركه الكبرى..... الفدراليه,لماذا

سالم بغدادي

ايلول 2003

 

 

قد يبدو الحديث عن الدستور وبمحافل شعبيه كالتي نكتب بها شكلا من اشكال استباق الامور فللدستور مختصون يحسنون كتابته ولجان سوف تؤسس للاخذ بذلك, لكني اعتقد ان مناقشه مختلف الطروحات حوله في نفس هذه المحافل امر لايخلوا من اهميه بالغه ,فالدستور سيكون في النهايه صناعه شعبيه ويجب ان توافق عليه الاغلبيه ..على الاقل كما نأمل.

 

يقود الحديث حول الدستور مباشره الى طريقه توزيع السلطات وطبيعه النظام القادم. وقبل الخوض في مناقشه كيفيه توزيع السلطات بما يكفل التوازن فيما بينها وبما يكفل ضمان شفافيه تمثيل تلك السلطات للاراده الحقيقيه لكافه ابناء الشعب بكل تنوعه سياسيا وثقافيا و دينيا وعرقبا, اجد لزاما التركيز على هاجس مهم سيحدد برأئ الكثير من الامور الا وهو دور السلطه المركزيه وكيفيه حمايه اجيالنا القادمه من احتمال سطوتها كما حصل سابقا.

ربما يوافق الكثيرين على ان هناك تناسبا طرديا بين ازدياد نفوذ السلطه المركزيه و بين حجم الخرق الذي مارسه المتربع على سده القرار فيها تجاه الحقوق الاساسيه للمواطن بالعيش بكرامه وحريه. فالدوله الملكيه الفيصليه الاولى التي يترحم العراقيون على ملفاتها في مجال حقوق المواطن ,لم تكن اكثر من جهه عليا محدوده الصلاحيات والامكانيات , حيث تشرف على اداء العمليه الدستوريه وضمان ا لتزام السلطات الثلاث بحدود التوازن الدستوري..الا ان الحال سرعان ما تغير في المرحله الفيصليه الثانيه من النظام الملكي وبسبب عوامل موضوعيه قد يكون منها حركه رشيد عالي العسكريه و حرب فلسطين وازدياد قوه الحركات الشيوعيه , وارتباط ذلك التغيير بزياده الدعم للمؤسسه العسكريه والامنيه . الامر الذي مهد الى بروز المؤسسه العسكريه كعنصر توازن رابع مهم في اداره شؤون البلد متوجا ذلك البروز بثوره تموز قاسم و التي قد تكون جائت معبره عن تطلعات الكثير من جماهير الشعب المسحوقه ولكن لتسلب الجميع اهم مقومات حمايه مواطنتهم الا وهو الغاء مبدأ فصل السلطات لجمعها بيد شخص واحد

 

ولم يكن هذا التطور بعيدا عن مفارقه مهمه فهذه الشخصيه التي جمعت بين العداله و الدكتاتوريه هيئت وربما بدون وعي , لمن جاء بعد ذلك كي يمارس الطغيان ولكن بدون العداله

واذا كانت حكومات مابعد الملكيه قد افرزت نفسها كأدارات عسكريه و ذلك انعكاسا لواقع مركز القوه الحقيقي لطبيعتها فأن تأميمات عارف للصناعه والتجاره ربما اسست الارضيه الصلبه لنشوء الدوله الرأسماليه التي امتد نفوذها لاهم القطاعات حيويه الا وهو الاقتصاد وبذلك فتح الطريق واسعه امام نشؤ الدوله الشموليه الصداميه. ان طبيعه التركيبه السكانيه و الجغرافيه و كثره المصادر الطبيعيه تجعل التدخل الاجنبي لصالح هذا الطرف العراقي او ذاك مسأله حتميه وبالتالي فان نموذج الدوله المركزيه القويه قد يسهل السيطره على مقدرات العراق مباشره او بشكل غير مباشر من خلال دعم حكومه قويه مركزيه من قبل اكثر من طرف خارجي .

 

 

 

من هنا فان الدستور القادم اذا ما اراد حمايه مستقبل اجيالنا فانه يجب ان يوجه اهتماما خاصا لمنع بروز الحكومه المركزيه الجباره و لعل اهم التحوطات هو منع كافه العوامل التي تساعد على ذلك وهنا يبرز الحل الفيدرالي و زياده صلاحيات الحكومات المحليه كمخرج واقعي وحيد, و الذي لا يخلو بدوره من معارضه جديه منها ماهو مدفوع بدافع الحرص على وحده العراق ومنها ماهو ناجم عن طموحات او مخاوف قد يكون بعضها مغذى من قبل اطراف خارجيه تجد في الحل الفيدرالي قضاء مبرم على امالها بالعوده بالعراق الى وضعه السابق بأن يكون محكوما من خلال قياده مركزيه قويه ولكن معزوله عن شعبها

 

وما يهمنا هنا هو الشريحه الاولى , فهؤلاء قد يظنون ان الفيدراليه هي مصلحه كرديه ضيقه باعتبارها مرحله لتأسيس الدوله الكرديه الكبرى ولكن المتمعن بدقه لابد وان يجد فيها مصلحه عراقيه عامه. فبالنسبه للسنه العرب مثلا قد يكون من غير المستساغ العيش تحت ظل حكومه ذات اغلبيه شيعيه اما المراهنه على كون الحاله الحاليه هي حاله مؤقته كما يعتقد البعض من قياداتها , فان فيها الكثير من المجزافه . فالمارد الشيعي قد خرج من قمقمه ولن يكون من السهوله ارجاعه فيها هذا اذا اسثنينا العامل الامريكي الذي من مصلحته اليوم اطلاق هذا المارد ولو بشكل محسوب كجزء من معادله التغيير المطلوبه في المنطقه وهو توجه استراتيجي لدوله عظمى لايحتمل تغيير زخمه مع تغير الرئيس او الحزب الحاكم كما قد يأمل المراهنون.. اما بالنسبه للشيعه فأن المراهنه على عنصر الاغلبيه وكذلك المعادلات الدوليه الراهنه , فانها امر لايخلوا من مجازفه أيضا. فان احسن مايمكن الحصول عليه الان هو تثبيت الفواصل الرئيسيه . فالعراق يعيش في محيط عربي سني و داخل منظومه سياسيه تم تشكيلها من قبل قوى استعماريه مهيمنه عبر عشرات السنين بحيث تخدم قوى عالميه لاتقل تأثيرا عن قوه الخط السياسي الامريكي الجديد كما ان اسرائيل بأعتبارها قوه اقليميه رئيسيه في المنطقه لن يكون من مصلحتها تاسيس دوله عراقيه ديموقراطيه محكومه مركزيا باغلبيه شيعيه لما قد يمثله ذلك من خطر مستقبلي.

 

 

ولكن يجب الاعتراف ان هذه الاشكاليات التي يطرحها المعارضون لها ما يبررها ,ولكي لا تتحول الحكومات المحليه الى كيانات مستقله لاحقا فانه يجب اعتماد مبدأ تفتيتها الى كيانات صغيره وكمثل على ذلك ان تكون بنفس تشكيله المحافظات حاليا على ان تبقى بغداد بكل التوازن العرقي والطائفي الفدراليه الاكبر وبذلك تكون عنصر الاستقرار لهذه الدوله الجديده . فعدم تقسيم العراق الى فيدراليات كبيره يمكن ان يحل الكثير من المشاكل مثل موضوع الاعتراض الذي قد تبديه بعض الاقليات مثل السنه العرب او التركمان في حاله انضمامهم تحت فيدراليه شماليه يكون الاكراد فيها اغلبيه , ناهيك عن الانقسام العشائري المعروف ضمن المحيط الكردي او ما يمكن ان تبديه الاقليه السنيه في البصره من وجودها ضمن كتله شيعيه جنوبيه كبيره . واذا كان هذا الحل يبدوا مناسبا لهذه الاقليات فهوقد يبدوا غير متناغم مع مطالب البعض الاخر , الا ان المتمعن فيه يمكن ان يتطلع من خلاله الى ضمان اكبر للجميع . ان وجود فيدراليه شيعيه عربيه كبيره وذات اغلبيه لايمكن ان تجعل الكرد في مأمن من تحول تلك الفيدراليه الى دوله دينيه قويه قد تبتلع الفدراليه الكرديه في وقت لاحق فيما لو تغيرت الظروف الدوليه والسياسيه.. اما من ناحيه الشيعه فان وجود كيان كردي موحد كبير قد يشجع على نشوء الدوله الكرديه عند تغيير الظروف الدوليه وهو امرسيجعل بقاء الدوله العراقيه امرا غير مضمون .

ارجوا ان لايفهم مما سبق انه عباره عن دعوه لتهميش المؤسسات المركزيه , ان ما هو مطلوب هو ضمان توجه هذه المؤسسات نحو دورها الاهم في ضمان وحده العراق واستقلاله و الدفاع عنه واداره المال الوطني العام , ان اكبر دوله مركزيه في العالم اليوم لا يخول القانون الفيدرالي فيها رئيس الدوله او سلطاتها التشريعيه , الحق في فرض قوانين على اصغر فيدراليه حيث يمكن تحديد تلك الصلاحيات في العراق الجديد . و هنا اجد من المناسب التذكير بأهم مسألتين ساعدت السلطه المركزيه في تنفيذ دكتاتوريه الدوله في العراق, وهما السيطره المركزيه على الجيش و رأسماليه الدوله .

 

1-رأسماليه الدوله: في بلد يمتاز بكثره خيراته الطبيعيه لابد وان تتحول السلطه المالكه لها و المسيره لادارته الى قوه رأسماليه عظمى واذا كان البعض يوجه هذه الحقيقه نحو تفكيك سيطره الدوله على المؤسسات و الهياكل التجاريه والصناعيه الحكوميه الكبرى فانه يجب الحذر من سرعه تنفيذ مثل هذا التحول لما قد يسببه من خسائر وازمات اجتماعيه. لذا فانه يمكن ان يكون الحل المؤقت بتحويلها الى مؤسسات مختلطه تمتلك الدوله فيها نسبه كبيره تمثل في مجالس ادارتها كأي مستثمر مالي على ان تتم اداراتها داخليا ولحين اعاده تأهيلها. اما من ناحيه الثروات الطبيعيه فان ماتشكله قيمه مثل هذه الهياكل من ناحيه المردود المادي لاتشكل شيئا يذكر مقارنه بالعوائد التي تجنى من النفط مثلا.. لذا فان مسأله معالجه سيطره الدوله المركزيه على اداره الاستثمار النفطي يجب ان تأخذ الاهتمام الاكبر و تعالج بحذر و بشكل ينمي هذه الثوره الوطنيه من ناحيه و يمنع التلاعب بمقدراتها, وفي الوقت الذي لاتوجد لدي وصفه سحريه لمعالجه هذا الموضوع الخطير فان التذكير به لا يخلوا من فائده.

 

 

2-القوه العسكريه والامنيه: العراق كبلد كبير نسبيا في منطقه تجتاز ازمات سياسيه و اجتماعيه وما قد يواجهه من تحديات واطماع بحاجه وبدون شك الى مؤسسات عسكريه دفاعيه ضاربه تتناسب مع حجمه.. وبسبب التجارب المريره السابقه من نتائج انشاء منظومه عسكريه قويه تحت قياده مركزيه, فانه يجب الاعتناء باسلوب تاسيس واداره الجيش الجديد كي نمنع احتمال توظيف سيطره القائد العام للقوات المسلحه او قواد الجيش والذي تتطلبه ضرورات انسيابيه الامر العسكري , من امكانيه تحولهم الى دكتاتوريات جديده. ولعلي لا اشطح كثيرا بامنيات عندما اقترح مثلا ضروره ان تكون القوه العسكريه الرئيسيه عباره عن قوه احتياطيه تتبع في ادارتها الى حكام الولايات او الفيدراليات من حيث التسلسل و الامر العسكري لموازنه القوه العسكريه المركزيه ويشكل يشبه فكره الحرس الوطني المحلي , على ان تبقى الصنوف المتخصصه مركزيه وتابعه للحكومه الفيدراليه من خلال مكانيكيات تسهل القرار المركزي..

اما القوه الامنيه والشرطه فيجب ان تكون مجهزه باحدث انواع التجهيزات القتاليه و ان تكون لا مركزيه وتتبع الحكومات المحليه من حيث التعيين و الاداره وبذلك قد نضمن عنصر موازنه اخر لآي احتمالات لا دستوريه يقوم بها جيش قوي .

 

العلاقه بين السلطات:

لكل فدراليه مجلس تشرعي وتنفيذي و يتم تنظيم العلاقه بين الفيدراليات و السلطه المركزيه بشكل يضمن للفدراليات الهامش الاوسع باختيار ما تراه مناسبا ومتلائما مع الطبيعه السكانيه والدينيه والاحتماعيه للمقاطعه على ان لايتعارض ذلك مع الخط العام للقانون الفيدرالي.

اما السلطه التشريعيه فأرى ان تتالف من مجلسين الاول مجلس للاعيان والثاني مجلس النواب .. الاعيان يتم انتخاب ثلاثه من كل فدراليه وعلى اساس الانتخاب العام على عموم الفدراليه والسبب في كونهم ثلاثه هو لاعطاء الفرصه للاقليات في الفيدراليه للحصول على مقعد ضمن مجلس الاعيان .. اما النواب فيتم انتخابهم على اساس مبدا المناطق الانتخابيه وحسب عدد السكان للمنطقه وبذلك نضمن تمثيلا متكافأ في الاعيان وتمثيلا متناسبا في النواب .. ان العلاقه بين المجلسين يجب ان تكون متعادله ولا يجوز مرور قانون بدون موافقتهما.

 

اما السلطه التنفيذيه فتتم من خلال رئيس منتخب بواسطه الشعب الذي يكلف رئيسا للوزاره يتم الموافقه عليه من قبل المجلسين بالاغلبيه الرئيسيه والبالغه ستون بالمائه ويتم تنظيم العلاقه بين السلطات الثلاث من خلال نصوص واضحه تحدد حدود صلاحيات كل منهم على ان يكون الدستور مفتوحا للاضافه وبما يتناسب مع واقع المتغيرات وبشرط الحصول على الاغلبيه المطلقه البالغه اكثر من خمسه وسبعون بالمائه.

 

 

وعوده للتساؤل الذي بدأنا به موضوعنا ..ترى هل احسنا الاجابه؟..و هل سيقتنع الجيل القادم بما نخططه لهم.

ان كنا على على خطأ ففي تقويمكم الاستغاثه وانا كنا على على صواب فذاك ما نرجوه..

.

 

 

 

#######################################################33

 

Translation by Vala

 

The Constitution, big battle

Why the federal?

By ٍSalim Baghdadee

It might seem that talking about the constitution in a public assembly such as the one that we writing , is a useless. The constitution has specialized people to write and committees that will be established for handling it . But I think that discussing many of the different ideas about this matter is something very important, because the constitution will be ,at the end, a popularity manufacturing and had to be approved by people.. At least as we hope.

 

The talks about the constitution leads directly to the way of distributing the authorities and the nature of the coming regime. And before going on in discussing the methods, in which the authorities will be distributed, in a way to guarantee the balance and the transparency of representing these authorities for the truthful will of all people in its politically, culturally, religiously ,and sectarian variations among them, I see it is very obligatory to consternate on an important thought which , in my opinion, will determine lots of things ; they are the role of the central authority and the way to protect our coming generations from the possibility of its assail as happened before.

Many may agree that there is a positive proportional between the increase of the central authority and the size of the breaks, that has been implemented by the handler of these decisions to the essential rights of citizens ,to live in dignity and freedom. The first Faisal Royal government that , the Iraqi people sympathy its going a way for its fair treatment in field of the citizen's rights , wasn't but a higher authority with limited capabilities and possibilities. It supervises the implementation of the constitution's operation and ensures the commitment of the three authorizations with the boundaries of the constitution balance. But the situation has been changed quickly in the second Faisal period of the royal regime because some of the objective factors; some of them might be the Rasheed Aali military movement, the Palestine war , the increment of the communis movements and the connection of this change with the increment for the support of the military and security establishment .This arranged to the appear of he military establishment as an important fourth balance element in the administration of the county issues; and coronet that appearing in the revaluation of July 58, which might come to express the ambitions of many crashed people , but to steel from everyone the most important foundations for protecting their citizenry, which is the cancel of the principle of separating the authorities; to put them in the hand of one person. This development wasn't far away from an important ironic distinction , because this personality which gathered between the justice and dictatorship prepared , perhaps unconsciously, for whom come afterwards to experience tyranny, but without justice.

 

If the governments after the royalty has distinguished itself as a military administrations , as a reflect for the fact of the real center of power for its nature. But Aref's nationalization for industry and commercial might establish the solid floor to the begin of the capitalism country that its powers expanded freely for the most vital sectors, which is economics, and by that opened the road widely in establishing the general industrial country. The nature of the inhabited and geographical structure and the large quantity of natural resources, make the foreign interfere for the sake of this Iraqi side or that ,a definite matter; and therefore the symbol for the strong central country might facile the control on the Iraqi capabilities directly or indirectly through the support of a central strong government by more than one external side.

 

From this, if the coming constitution wants to protect the future of our generations, it must give special concern to prevent the appearance of the huge central government. Perhaps the most important precautions to prevent all the factors that help to accomplish that. Here the federal solution and the increase of the local government authorities come out as a factual solely exit, which doesn't is not free from a serious opponents; some of them is pushed by the desire to keep the unity of Iraq and some because the ambitions or fears that some of them might be supported by some external sides, which find the federal solution is a definite destruction for its hope to return Iraq back to the previous situation, to be ruled by a strong central leadership, but which is isolated from its people.

 

Which is important here is this first human slide, those might find that the federally is a narrow Kurdish benefit by considering it a stage to establish the big Kurdish country. But the one who looks carefully must find in it a general Iraqi benefit . For the Arabian Sunni for instance it might be unlikable to live under the shadow of a government of a *Shiite majority. And to bet that the current situation is a temporary state, as many may think because of their leaderships , is something has a lot of risk .the Shiite giant has come out from its long-necked bottle and it will be not easy to return it back to again, this if we exclude the American factor, which its beneficiary today to loose this giant, even in a calculated manner, as apart of the required changeable equation of it in the region; and it is a strategic trend for a great country that doesn't bear changing its thrust , with changing the president or the ruling party ,as some betters wish. But for Shiite the bet on the factor of the majority and also the current internationals equations, is something has its risk too. The best that can we get now is to fix the main partitions. Iraq is living in a Sunni Arabic ocean and inside a political system that has been determined by supervising colonialism forces over some tens of years, in a way that serves an intentional forces, that affects the same as the new American political line . Also as Israel is considered a major force in the region, it has no benefit to establish a democratic Iraqi county centrally ruled by a Shiite's majority because for what it represents of a future danger .

But we must admit that these issues that the opponents show has what justify them; and in order that the local governments will not convert to an independent entities, later on, the principle of fragment them to small entities, must be depended. As an example to that is to be in the same formation of the governments now, but to keep Baghdad with the all sectarian balance the biggest federally, and by that will be the element of settlement for this new country.

 

If the Iraq doesn't separated for big federal governments, this may solve many problems such as the subject of objection which some minorities show like the Arab Sunni or the Turkmen, in the case of joining them under a northern federal in which the Kurdish people are the majority . Besides the known sectarian division inside the Kurdish cycle or what the minority of Sunni in Basra may show from its existence inside a big southern Shiite group .If the solution here seems suitable for these minorities ,it might seem not synchronized with the others' requests. But the examiner may see through it more insurance for everybody. The existence of a big Arabian Shiite federal and from majority can't make the Kurdish in safe from the changing of this federally to a strong religious country that may swallow the Kurdish federally later on , if the national and political circumstances have changed. While from the side of Shiite the existence of a big Kurdish entity may encourage the built of the Kurdish country when the national circumstances changes, which will make the existence of the Iraqi country something not guaranteed.

 

I hope not to understand from what have been said previously that it is an invitation to margin the role of the central establishments. What is required is to guarantee the role of these establishments towards its most important role to ensure the unity of Iraq , independent ,to defend it and to administer the general national money. Today, and in the biggest central country in world, its federal law doesn't permit, for the president or for its legislative authorities, the right to impose the laws for the least federally; where it is possible to determine that authority in the new Iraq. Here, I see it suitable to remind by the most important issues which helped the central authority to implement the dictatorship of country in Iraq, which are central control on army and the capitalism of the government.

 

1- The capitalism of the government: in a county which is distinguished by many natural resources, the owner authority which handles its administration, must become a great capitalism force. And if some direct this truth to discompose the control to the government over the establishments and the great commercial, industrial and governmental frames, one must be careful from the speed for implementing this transfer for what it may cause of loses and social crisis. So the temporary solution might be to convert it to joined venture establishments but the government has a big rate , represented in its administive council the same as any financial investor, but it is administered internally till it is rehabilitated again . For instance what the natural resources side gain materially is nothing if it compared by the coming benefits gained from the oil. There for the issue of treating the central county control on the oil invest administration must take the biggest consideration and to be treated carefully in a way increases this motional fortune from one side and to prevent free- play by its fortune . In this time I have no magic prescription to manage this dangerous subject , but to remind others of it, has a great beneficiary .

 

2- The military and security force: Iraq as a relatively big country in a region passing through a political and social crises and for what it may face from challenges and avid need, without doubt , to striking defensive military establishments fit for its size. And because of the pervious fitful experiments as a results of establishing a strong military organization under the control of central leadership, it must be taken care in the style f of establishing and administer for the new army to prevent the possibility of employing the control of the general leader of the armed forces or the leaders of the army, which is required by the derivations of the military order , from the possibility to turn them to new dictatorship .And I may not go too far by my wishes, when I suggest , for instance, the necessity that the main military force will be a reserved force, follows in its administration to the rulers of the states or to the federally, for the sequence steps and the military order, to balance the central military force and in away resembles the ideas of the local national guards, but the specialized types remains central and submitted to the federal government thorough the mechanism facilitate the central decision. While the security and policemen force must be equipped by the newest provisions, not to be central and to follow the local government from the establishing and administration and by that we may guarantee another balance element for any possibilities, not legislative done by a strong army.

 

 

The relationship between the authorities:

For each federal there is a legislative and executive council. The relationship between the federal and the central authority is organized in a way guarantee to the federal the widest margin by choosing what it sees right and suitable with the inhabited, religious and social nature for the district, on one condition, that it the doesn't conflict with the general federal law.

I suggest that the legislative authority consists of two councils, the first one is the Senate, and the second one is the Parliament. In the Senate a three should be elected from each federal on the bias of the general election for all federally, The cause of being three only is to give the opportunity for the minority in federally to get a chair within the Senate. While the Parliament are elected on the bias of the principle of the elected areas and according to the number of the inhabited people in the area; and by that we guarantee a qualified representation in the Senate and a qualified representation in the Parliament. The relationship between the two councils must be equalized and a law must not pass without their approval.

 

While the executive authority must be done through an elected president by people which is candidate as a president for the ministry that has been approved upon from the two councils and the majority which equals sixty per cent. The relationship among the three authorities is organized though obvious texts determines the limits of the authorities of each of them ,on the condition ,that the constitution permits openly for addition with what suit the changeable facts and on the condition to get the approval of absolute majority which reaches to more than seventy five per cent.

 

We return to ask the same question we start with , have we replied well ? Is the next generation will be convinced of our planning for them?

Are we were wrong?

 

It is in your correction the help and if we were right ,that is what we want.

 

ٍSept. 2003

[FreeArab]

I dont really understand the complete point this person is trying to make, some of what he said did raise some red flags in my head:

 

Under no circumstances, should we nationalise ANYTHING in Iraq. Nationalisation is simply sanctioning artibrary government power, and that is the LAST thing we need in Iraq. Its a slippery slope we need not tread - leave the government in charge of what it does best - protecting the citizenry from non-concensual physical harm - police, military, courts, elections, etc. Nothing more. I think this has to be stressed. Yes, someone who wants to nationalise stuff has good intentions, I do not doubt it, but good intentions in this arena has dire consequences if each step is not calculated first.

 

NO TO NATIONLIASATION. YES TO A SECULAR IRAQ.

[salim]

FreeArab,

 

Yours

 

Under no circumstances, should we nationalise ANYTHING in Iraq. Nationalisation is simply sanctioning artibrary government power,

 

I thought what are you calling for is exactly what the article is saying

و هنا اجد من المناسب التذكير بأهم مسألتين ساعدت السلطه المركزيه في تنفيذ دكتاتوريه الدوله في العراق, وهما السيطره المركزيه على

 

الجيش و رأسماليه الدوله .

 

1-رأسماليه الدوله: في بلد يمتاز بكثره خيراته الطبيعيه لابد وان تتحول السلطه المالكه لها و المسيره لادارته الى قوه رأسماليه عظمى واذا كان البعض يوجه هذه الحقيقه نحو تفكيك سيطره الدوله على المؤسسات و الهياكل التجاريه والصناعيه الحكوميه الكبرى فانه يجب الحذر من سرعه تنفيذ مثل هذا التحول لما قد يسببه من خسائر وازمات اجتماعيه. لذا فانه يمكن ان يكون الحل المؤقت بتحويلها الى مؤسسات مختلطه تمتلك الدوله فيها نسبه كبيره تمثل في مجالس ادارتها كأي مستثمر مالي على ان تتم اداراتها داخليا ولحين اعاده تأهيلها

 

Here, I see it suitable to remind by the most important issues which helped the central authority to implement the dictatorship of country in Iraq, which are central control on army and the capitalism of the government.

 

1- The capitalism of the government: in a county which is distinguished by many natural resources, the owner authority which handles its administration, must become a great capitalism force. And if some direct this truth to discompose the control to the government over the establishments and the great commercial, industrial and governmental frames, one must be careful from the speed for implementing this transfer for what it may cause of loses and social crisis. So the temporary solution might be to convert it to joined venture establishments but the government has a big rate , represented in its administive council the same as any financial investor, but it is administered internally till it is rehabilitated again

 

 

There might be a translation issues though.. I find it difficult to map the translation to the original.

I understood that the auther is mentioning Nationalization as one of two reasons that helped the dictatorship.. He is calling for free economy but proposing a temporary gradual solution to this issue

[Woody1965]

Salim, that's the way I understood it too, that he wants to privatize, but slowly. That might be correct. It could be the reason why Russia had such trouble right after the USSR collapsed. They didn't get to plan anything, but became privatized immediately.

[FreeArab]

Salim, thanks for clearing it up. It appears I mis-understood.

 

I guess I can agree with the plan of privitization hapenning in phases...as long as privitization happens. My only concern then would be that it does not get completed due to govn beureucracy.

 

I came across some interesting information regarding the crude timetable for Iraqi soverignty. Check it out:

 

http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=IA15703

 

Here is but a small pasted portion of it:

 

 

The "Fundamental Law" to be drafted and approved by February 28, 2004. It is intended to provide the legal framework for the future system of government and the protection of basic human rights. It is meant to include:

a. Bill of rights (freedom of speech and religion, and a statement of equal rights for all Iraqis).

 

b. Federalist arrangement for Iraq.

 

c. Independence of the judiciary.

 

d. Civil control over the military.

 

f. Timetable for drafting Iraq's permanent constitution by a body directly elected by the Iraqi people.

 

The fundamental law expires on Dec 31st, 2005, at which point a new constitution takes places. I guess during the period from now till the expiration of the fundamental law, bids should be placed on various economic sectors, and sold (or just given) to the highest bidder. This way, by the time Iraq has a working constitution, and the new government takes power, they wont have that much to "own" as nationalised industry, because they would have all been sold to private people/co-orporations by then.

[Guest Guest_Tom Penn]

Free Arab,

 

There must be some strong central control in Iraq, or the country will not be a country for long. I am not just speaking of the internal pressures. Iraq will be the only democracy in a dangerous place where all the power-centers and money-makers could see this as an ideological threat. From the Mullahs, the Kings, the Princes, the oil brokers, and black-marketeers, all powerful and rich factions in the region that benefit from their own unjust systems can be expected to try and influence the fledgling Iraq, if not outright destroy it.

 

I agree with most of what the author said. I am not at all convinced about what form of government would be best for Iraq. I'll have to just trust that to the Iraqi people. I think the senate should have delegates from smaller regional subdivisions of the "Federal" government. Thus the voices of minority communities within each area can be heard on a national stage. Police must be accountable to local communities. The author is absolutely correct about the critical importance of these Constitutional decisions about how national power will be divided and adminstered. How these issues are Constitutionally addressed may not only affect the prosperity of Iraq, but perhaps her long-term survival. The national government must be strong, but not too strong. The same holds true of power held by the military, IP, local councils, State governments, religious figures, etc. etc.

 

Regards,

[Guest Guest_Tom Penn]

Free,

 

I am sorry. Having re-read your post I realize I did not completely understand your meaning the first time.

 

I agree completely about limited central government. I thought you were commenting about the article by Basim Almustaar, and did not see where he advocated nationalization of assets. Maybe I need to reread that too.

 

Regards,

[Guest Guest_Tom Penn]

Ooops, should have read the whole board before opening my yap. OK I'm shutting up now.

[salim]

An interesting article by a sunni Iraqi writer.. Hight lighinging the fears of Sunni toward election..

However if Bremer cannot convince Washington to bow to Shiite pressure and hold elections in Iraq soon, there is no chance of a major US withdrawal from the country this year ­ and perhaps this decade. Unless it truly passes on ownership of the country to the Iraqis, the US will not have a decent chance of pulling Iraq out of its current tailspin.

 

Shia resless

What the Shiites are asking for is quite simple: that they not be denied their rightful role in post-war Iraq. However this is not merely a Shiite problem; the Shiites are, by default, speaking for other groups ­ Sunnis and Kurds ­ that also wish to play a part in governing their own country. If all factions are allowed to take part in direct elections this year, the whole landscape of problems in Iraq will change. Security will become an Iraqi responsibility; Iraqis will take decisions; and, more importantly, Iraqis will regain the authority over and power in their own country.

A leaflet handed out by demonstrators in Baghdad explained: “Because of the conditions under which Iraq lives, and the suffering that the Iraqi people face daily in this country, it must be the people’s right to make their own destiny … The Iraqi people want a political system of direct elections and a constitution that gives them justice and equality for all.”

This is also what all Iraqis want. It happens that the Shiites are the loudest voice today because, rightly or wrongly, they are perceived as a potential threat to Western interests.

It is ironic that the very group that was expected to push Iraq toward fundamentalism is leading the call for democracy. The Shiites, and in particular Sistani, have always seemed one step ahead of everyone else since the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Having spent almost 30 years as the only real opposition to the Baathists, they were, albeit in a fractious way, more prepared for the post-war environment that the Americans, opposition groups such as the Iraqi National Congress (INC), and the Sunnis.

From the beginning the Shiites were cooperative with the occupying forces, urged on by both Sistani and by the late Ayatollah Mohammed Baqer al-Hakim. They were content to wait, in the knowledge that superior numbers and impending democracy would ensure that Shiites finally had a say in how Iraq would be governed. It also seemed that Shiite leaders were not looking to emulate the Islamic Republic in Iran, but, instead, sought a more pragmatic future. They had everything to gain after Saddam’s fall and reveled in the new religious and social freedoms available to them.

As evidence of this, when the Shiites have had grievances against the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) they have protested peacefully. The holy cities of Najaf and Karbala were tranquil for months after the regime’s fall. Until last October there was a high level of cooperation between local militias and coalition forces. But as time dragged on and the move to self-rule became protracted, the Shiites, rightly, became nervous.

 

 

 

However, He failed to expect INC reaction to election, as he failed to explain why is Alchalabi lobying for the election in US, !

 

The INC and other opposition groups, which formed the basis of the Iraqi Governing Council, eyed the Shiites with suspicion from day one. A leading INC member promised, “we have not waited this long to see the country slip into the hands of the Shiites. If it comes to it, we will fight.” Against this backdrop it is no surprise that many in the council have continually opposed elections. Members, including Ahmad Chalabi, Ayad Allawi and Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, have little or no base of support in Iraq. They could not hope to remain in government after an election

[salim]

تقرير مهم لسعد الشمري من الكويت حول اجتماع دول الجوار مؤكدا ما تنبأ به السيد المستعار في مقاله اعلاه.. الخطوره الكبرى ليست من اقامه دوله كرديه معزوله وصغيره.. الخطوره التي يتخوف منها هو احتمال ان يؤدي ذلك الى ظهور دوله شيعيه قويه زغنيه ومؤثره ومنفتحه على كل دول المنطقه ثقافيا ولغويا ودينيا وجغرافيا وسياسيا

 

"يريدون «التأكد من عدم وجود خطط للتقسيم». واضاف «نريد ان يقول لنا العراق صراحة انه لا توجد صيغة تقسيم قيد الدرس وان

الفيدرالية المطروحة ادارية وليست عرقية»، في اشارة الى مطالبة الاكراد بدولة فيدرالية. واوضح ان تركيا مدعومة من الدول الاخرى المجتمعة في الكويت تعارض كليا اقامة دولة كردية يمكن ان «تطرح امكانية لدولة شيعية تعارضها ايضا».

 

http://www.nahrain.com/d/news/04/02/15/srq0215a.html

[Guest Tom Grey]

It looks from here that the Shia have been fairly cooperative, and reasonable. There will always be the danger of theocracy.

 

I still don't understand why there aren't more mayoral races, and getting used to democracy and "loyal opposition".

 

On nationalization, the oil profits are SO HUGE, that it might well be better to keep them under honest gov't control, than to privatize them and allow the new owners to secretly corrupt the gov't -- and it is silly to expect less than massive corruption.

 

To reduce gov't power, having an Alaska Trust type arrangement, where every Iraqi citizen gets some $1000 - $2000, per year, because of the Iraqi oil exported, would help create cohesion in the society.

 

Salim, do you know more about city elections?

[Guest hogan]

These are complex issues. We all hope they are decided by intelligent, compassionate and benevolent Iraqi leaders. But the fundamental protection for the people is not whether Iraq has a stong central goverment or a federalized one. It is not even whether Iraq ends up a democracy or a theocracy. The fundamental protection for the people is the same in America, it is the same in Europe and it is true all over the world. IT IS FREEDOM OF SPEECH! If Iraq losses this right again, the experiment is over, and the form of the constitution will not matter one bit. If you are wondering why oppression of the Russian citizen continues even with a "democratic" constitution, look no further than the elimination of freedom of the press. Protect this freedom with your life, Iraqis. Everything else will work itself out for the best over time. It's that simple.

[Guest Mustefser]

Any one knows about the the next ellection mechanisms and rules? I don't see people debating on it..

[Guest Guest]

Apparently Bremer signed into law on 16 June the establishment of a national party slate style (proportional rep.).

 

This will almost certainly lead to a break up -- as Czecho-Slovakia is no more. If keeping Iraq together is a good goal, then local districts electing local representatives (first past the post) should be the form of the democracy. See AEI Michael Rubin & Michael Ledeen.

[Guest mustefser]

Below an interesting article.. But does any one have a link to the law itself?

 

 

http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.20768,filter./news_detail.asp

 

The Wrong Elections for Iraq  Print  Mail

 

 

 

By Michael Rubin

Posted: Monday, June 21, 2004

 

ARTICLES

Washington Post   

Publication Date: June 19, 2004

 

On June 30 the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq will cease to exist. A caretaker Iraqi government will run the country until elections in January. While the transfer of sovereignty is a watershed, Iraqis say true legitimacy will come only with the elections.

 

But now technocratic decisions having to do with these elections are threatening to undercut the durability of any democracy in the country. There are two ways to hold direct elections: by party slates, with each party gaining representation according to its portion of the vote, or by single-member constituencies, somewhat like our own congressional districts. On June 4 Carina Perelli, head of the U.N. electoral advisory team in Iraq, endorsed party slates.

 

When I was a roving CPA political adviser, I lived outside the Green Zone and interacted not only with Iraqi politicians but also with ordinary people. Voting was the topic of conversations at teahouses and mosques. Islamist parties tended to favor a party-slate system. Advocates of an Iranian-style Islamic republic were blunt: "The first article in a democracy is the rule of the majority over the minority," Sayyid Hadi Modarresi, one of Karbala's most influential clerics, told the Arabic daily Al-Hayah.

 

Liberal Iraqis favor constituency-based elections. The Transitional Administrative Law calls for a 275-member National Assembly, which translates into each district's member representing approximately 87,000 people. Contests would occur not between parties but between individuals, who would be accountable to local residents rather than party bosses. Former Governing Council members condemned as irrelevant by CPA administrator L. Paul Bremer could win some districts. Raja Khuzai, an outspoken Shiite advocate for women's rights, is popular in her home town of Diwaniyah. Residents of Khadimiya favor Iraqi National Congress head Ahmed Chalabi. A religious party leader, Abdul Aziz Hakim, is popular in Najaf. Less successful would be uncharismatic, corrupt or abusive party hacks who hope to win power on the coattails of party bosses.

 

Older Iraqis also favor constituencies. Distrust of political parties is deeply rooted. One recent poll indicated that political parties have only a 3 percent favorability rating. Pensioners remember the 1960s as a time of pitched street battles between adherents of leftist and nationalist parties. Younger generations view parties through the lens of the Baath Party experience, in which employment depended on a party membership card. Distrust of parties extends to Iraqi Kurdistan, where I taught in the 2000-01 academic year. With few exceptions, my students associated local Kurdish parties with corruption, abuse of power and nepotism.

 

Even Perelli, the U.N. official, acknowledged Iraqi ill feeling toward political parties. "The anti-political party feeling of the population is extremely high," she told journalists in May. But at her news conference this month, Perelli explained her rationale for abandoning the accountability of single-member constituencies in favor of pursuing party-slate elections. "There are a lot of communities that have been broken and dispersed around Iraq," she said, "and these communities wanted to be able to accumulate their votes and to vote with like-minded people."

 

With that one sentence, Perelli would set Iraq on the slippery slope to the failed Lebanese-style communal system. According to an Iraqi electoral commission member, Bremer agreed to a party-slate system to bypass the tricky question of who votes where, thereby trading Iraq's long-term health for short-term expediency.

 

The U.N. endorsement of a party-slate system fails to correct the mistakes of the past year. While Bremer condemned the Governing Council as irrelevant, the truth was more nuanced. Many Iraqis adopt the same "throw-the-bums-out" mentality that Americans voice about Congress, even while supporting their own representatives. Distrust of the Governing Council was more pronounced in towns such as Kut, which had no representation, than in cities, such as Najaf, which were represented. Even in Iraq, politics is about patronage.

 

The party-slate system will not bolster representation. Many Iraqis share ethnicity but not local interests. Tel Afar, a town of 160,000 east of Mosul, is 95 percent Shiite Turkmen. Its Turkish-speaking residents have little in common with Turkmen in Erbil or Kirkuk. The party-slate system might also undercut religious freedom. Christians, for example, represent less than 3 percent of Iraq's population. They remain concentrated in towns such as Alqosh, Ainkawa and Duhok. Many Christians do not support parties such as the Assyrian Democratic Movement. Without district-based elections, they may find themselves without representation. Smaller religious communities that do not have their own political parties but who live in clustered districts may find themselves without political representation in the important constitutional process.

 

Four years ago, my University of Baghdad-trained translators repeatedly stumbled over words such as tolerance and compromise, concepts that simply did not exist in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Now, with the decision to transfer responsibility for Iraq to an international body concerned more with technical convenience than with democracy, the White House threatens the future stability of Iraq. A one-person, one-vote, one-time election based on communal identity may please men like Hadi Modarresi, but Iraqi democrats will view it as a betrayal of their future.

 

Michael Rubin is a resident scholar at AEI.