Iraq was never a democracy.

The Constitution of the Kingdom of Iraq of March 21, 1925 (as amended July 29, 1925) provided for a constitutional monarchy (Article 21: "On accession to the throne, the King shall swear an oath before a joint meeting of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate, which shall be presided over by the president of the Senate, that he will observe the terms of the constitution, preserve the independence of the country and strive faithfully to further the interests of both country and people."), but it was not a democratic system where the monarch was only a figurehead.

Executive power was vested in the King. Article 26(1): "The King is the supreme head of the State. He confirms laws, orders their promulgation and supervises their execution. By his order regulations are drawn up for the purpose of giving effect to the terms of laws, in so far as such laws contain provisions therefor." When Parliament was not sitting, he also had the power to make laws by issuing Royal Ordinances.

The Senate was appointed by the King. He was commander in chief of the armed forces and could declare war with the assent of the Council of Ministers (but did not need Parliament's consent). Judges were appointed by the King.

There were some limitations. Parliament could repeal Royal Ordinances once it met. It had the power to approve treaties. The King appointed government ministers and officials, but on the recommendation of the Prime Minister or responsible ministers.

The lower house, the Chamber of Deputies, was fairly representative democratic. It was elected based on universal male suffrage, with special provisions to ensure ethnic and religious minority representation. But since any law required assent of the King and of both houses, the King and the Senate he appointed had a veto over the Chamber of Deputies.

The Supreme Court was not a standing body, and was appointed when necessary for various functions (interpreting the Constitution, trying a minister, etc.) by Royal Decree. The Senate chose the membership from among its own members and senior judges.

Politically, the monarchy period was tumultuous. The British mandate ended in 1932. Iraq's first coup came in 1936. It's second came in 1941, a pro-German one which led to the British invasion. There was a lesser uprising in 1948, and major protests in 1952 which led to the imposition of martial law.

The 1958 coup overthrew the monarchy, and the Republic of Iraq was founded. Two factions arose out of the coup - one close to the Iraqi Communist Party and one close to the Ba'ath Party. The 1925 Royal Constitution was abolished, but no new constitution was promulgated, nor any parliamentary elections held. Instead, power was exercised through decrees.

The Ba'ath took power in 1963, but lost it a few months later, when the military overthrew the then-small party. In 1964, Iraq began moves to unite with Syria and Egypt into the United Arab Republic, but this fell apart by 1965. A civilian prime minister was appointed, who tried to establish the rule of law, but the central government was still weak and a Kurdish rebellion soon began. The military took power again in 1966. The government remained weak and another coup in 1968 left a power vacuum into which the Ba'ath stepped.

A provisional constitution was put forth in 1968 and became effective in 1970.

Under the 1970 interim constitution, Iraq was a "Sovereign People's Democratic Republic." The individual rights set forth in earlier constitutions were subject to "social" rights, first of which was that "the social solidarity is the first foundation for the Society. Its essence is that every citizen accomplishes his duty in full, and that the Society guarantees the citizen's rights and liberties in full." (Article 10). Such individual liberties as remained were made subject to certain qualifications, and an article was added limiting all rights: "It is prohibited to exercise any activity against the objectives of the People, stipulated in this Constitution."

Economically, it was a socialist system, with a nod to Arab fascism: "The State assumes the responsibility for planning, directing and steering the national economy for the purpose of: (a) establishing the socialist system on scientific and revolutionary foundations; (b) realizing the economic Arab unity." (Article 12).

Private property was subject to state control, and had to be used for the benefit of society (Article 16(a): "Ownership is a social function, to be exercised within the objectives of the Society and the plans of the State, according to stipulations of the law.").

The "supreme institution in the State" was the Revolutionary Command Council, all of whose members had to be Ba'athists. The Parliament was to be replaced by a National Council, which had no real power. The President of the Republic held the most power, far more than the King ever had. No National Council was elected until 1980. All candidates had to be approved by the Ba'ath.

So, to sum up:

1535-1918: Ottoman administration (with a few interruptions and some degree of local autonomy)
1918-1932: British administration, with some moves to creating a constitutional monarchy
1932-1958: Constitutional monarchy, but not a democratic one
1958-1968: Republic, weak and undemocratic, mainly a series of military dictatorships
1968-2003: "Sovereign People's Democratic Republic" under the Ba'ath.
2003-2004: US-led Coalition administration
2004-2005: Interim transitional government appointed by the Coalition
2005-date: Democratically-elected government working on creating democratic institutions.

brother, I bow in your general direction.

thank you.

s.
-

Doooh!!!

TR

In 1921, Iraq elected King Faysal. Basic concept of a representative democracy is elected leadership, correct? So election of the King (who is evidently the power and leadership based on your post) is a representative democracy. It may not be the sort that we are used to, but it is a democracy. In addition, a parliamentary system did exist during the time period that is considered to have been under British rule ( http://www.angelfire.com/nt/Gilgamesh/1918.html )

Sadaam Hussein was elected, as was Stalin, does that make Sadaam's Iraq and the USSR democratic?

TR

Stalin was elected?

Since when?

I'lll have to look into Hussein, never heard such a claim.

People have claimed Hitler was elected. He wasn't, he was appointed.

Hussein
 

Not speaking to Hussein exactly, but I'll speak in a general way about the Ba'ath political party in most of the middle eastern countries.

The dictator runs the Ba'ath party in his country. At the Ba'ath convention meeting they pick somebody to head the ticket in the elections. No suprise there, they pick the dictator. With his the only name on the ballot it's no wonder most of them win with well over 80% of the vote, a landslide.

Like I said before, read the background history of the young turks, arab nationalism and the rise of the Ba'ath political party in most of the middle eastern countries that covers the time from WW I up to the 60s.

Exactly my point.

Communist parties hold elections during party congresses. The outcome is generally preordained, but the exercise serves to legitimize the leadership, at least for their own internal consumption. It also exposes rifts in party unity, which depending on the nature of party politics, can be exceedingly dangerous. We have all heard of party "purges," and we even tend to feel an aversion to the term "factionalism."

Note that in the example of communist parties, generally only party members vote, though popular elections among the broad masses of the citizenry do sometimes also take place. The results of these popular elections are typically foregone conclusions, though I am sure that my brother Airborne Lawyer can find and cite exceptions. In no case but one that I recall off the top of my head do they trump the decisions taken by the party. The party asserts that the party member representatives of the masses, from the mass organizations, represent the will of the people, as do the party members representing other "popular" constituencies, themselves.

We in the West have never accepted this as a form of democracy.

In our own system, there is a popular vote, and there is the Electoral College. As we all know, except under specific conditions, the popular vote is not a vote that directly elects our presidents. Presidents are indirectly elected through the Electoral College vote. Critics of this system note that it, too, is subject to party politics, and the results can also be foregone conclusions. Ask yourself this basic question: who elects, or designates, as the case may be, members of the Electoral College?

We do directly vote for representatives, and for senators, hence the term "representative democracy." In the US, we directly vote for members of the legislature, which as well all know, is only one part of our government, the other portions being the Executive branch, and the Judicial branch, in the form of the Supreme Court.

Through foreign eyes, the electoral spectacle that we mount every four years is exactly that: a show intended to legitimize the choice of the Electoral College. From the standpoint of a communist, the Electoral College system is not significantly different from their own. Neither communist parties nor modern political parties in the United States are "the people." They represent the people, and I think that it is clear that they only represent some of the people, and it can be argued that they are, in fact, only weakly representative altogether. In America, we do not vote politicians into membership in either political party. Under some historical forms of communism, (more strictly and accurately termed socialism), labor unions, mass organizations, and other political entities have indeed voted to designate representatives to represent them within the communist or socialist party.

(Strictly speaking, I agree with the assertion that genuine communism has been attempted but never implemented historically. All forms have been socialist experiments on a continuum to a communist ideal which doctrinally cannot emerge until it is a global phenomenon.)

In fact, it can be argued that some communist parties have been more representative of the people, strictly speaking, than the Republican and Democratic parties in the United States. Yes, I wrote that. This form of democracy is broadly termed "indirect democracy," and specifically "representative democracy." I assert for purposes of this discussion that many socialist systems have historically embodied at least some elements of representative democracy, though I will agree that traditionally the term refers more precisely to votes for the legislative branch in the US, and for parliaments in other polities.

From my personal perspective, I consider the choice between Democrats and Republicans in this country to be a false choice. But I digress.

There are a multitude of definitions of Democracy, with a capital D, but I will cite the one from the Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia: "Democracy is a form of government in which decisions are made with the direction of the majority of its citizenry through a fair elective process."

As you can see, this is not as precise as we might wish. The primary reason why we in the West discount the internal party elections and mass popular elections of communist polities is because we perceive that their voting processes are not "fair." The Encyclopedia continues, "It can apply to a multitude of government systems, as these concepts transcend and often occur concomitantly with other forms," implying other forms of government, which is precisely the point that I make with the example above.

For myself, I define Democracy very simply: one person, one vote, period. Direct democracy is generally the term used to signify this form. Historically, I am not aware that it has ever existed, though some assert that the Swiss system comes closest, as it includes two of three prerequisites, which the Wikipedia Encyclopedia terms Initiative, Referendum, and Recall. In the US, which strictly speaking is a federal republic, more than half of the states in the union permit citizen-initiated balloting, and most states permit either Initiatives and Referenda. One example of Recall is the process which resulted in the recall of the previous governor of California, and the subsequent election of The Governator.

It is obvious in my opinion that elections do not a democracy make. As exemplified by most communist systems, those who are electable are often determined by their membership in mass or labor organizations which by definition means that only those who adhere to an acceptable set of beliefs are eligible. This can be said of many other examples, as well.

There is much more to discuss, but I will stop for now.

Let the frenzy begin.

:)

Hitler received the largest minority vote in the Weimar Republic in 1933. So, it is true that he was not directly elected by a majority. He received the largest minority vote, however, and hence was the default winner.

Interestingly, the Weimar constitution permitted its own suspension under emergency conditions without a vote or an election.

We all know what a real democracy is and iraq has never been one, never. You sort of shot yourself in the foot with your first sentence there, "King Faysal..." in all of history I've never heard of an elected king, appointed maybe but never elected. I'm sure you will prove me wrong and find an elected king, but was he really "elected"? I doubt it.

You should leave the twisting of history for the uneducated.

Tell me GH did you miss this in the News?
"New Iran President Was Hostage Taker" He was also elected? Who would have thought an islamic terrorist could be elected as a head of state. What could the masses be thinking? Surely their peaceful religion would forbid them from electing anyone that might be construed as a religious extremist?

Maybe we were wrong in the naming of this thread, it should not read "Are we at war with islam" but "Is islam at war with us?"
I still believe so and each day proves what I (and Sir Winston Churchill) have to say about todays islamic followers.

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

-Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).

Have you ever watched the videos of the insurgent attacks against the US military? Ever listened to the islamic extremists before they blow themselves up in a group of children, or when they shoot unarmed civilians and soldiers etc? Greenhat, to the video, EVERYONE, everyone I've ever heard NOT one has cried for FREEDOM. Tell me GreenHat what/who are they fighting for? It's NOT FREEDOM that much is sure. Funny how they all have the same fanatical cry.

I'll stand with Sir Winston Churchill on this one. I figure I'm in good company.

Please feel free to continue to defend the islamic religion, it is your right and I will continue to defend your freedom of speech with my last breath. I'm sure Salman Rushdie would happier if the islamic religion allowed the same freedom of speech.

The Soviet Constitution of 1936 provided for elections for public officials. Unfortunately, the Communist Party provided the only list of candidates. Thus elections resulted in extremely high percentages of votes for the candidates. Write-ins were discouraged. STRONGLY discouraged.

Saddam was relected several times to seven year terms, most recently in 2002.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/m.../16/iraq.vote/

"Saddam gets perfect poll result

Wednesday, October 16, 2002 Posted: 12:23 PM EDT (1623 GMT)

Tributes to the re-elected leader were held aloft by supporters

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Iraq has declared Saddam Hussein the winner with 100 percent of the votes in a referendum granting him another seven-year term, bringing bursts of celebratory gunfire in Baghdad's streets."


Magician is right, we have a republic, not a strict democracy.

The Founding Fathers did not want a democracy, and argued strongly against it in their writings.

James Madison: "Federalist #10: ...there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

Alexander Hamilton: "It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience had proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."

Alexander Hamilton: "We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."

John Adams: "Remember, Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself! There never was a democracy that did not commit suicide."

Patrick Henry:"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth...For my part, whatever anguish of the spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to prepare for it." As we near this nation's celebration of Independence there are three truths that need to be told. First. We are not supposed to be a democracy; we are supposed to be a Constitutional Republic. Second. We find ourselves today a secular society but we were formed as a Christian nation. Third. Americans have been taught to believe the concept that "a wall of separation of church and State" exists between religion and government. The truth is our founding fathers did not want any one Christian church to be preferred [have power] over another. Religion was fundamental to every aspect of life. They did not want religion out of government — they wanted government out of religion!

Benjamin Rush: "A simple democracy is one of the greatest of evils."

Fisher Ames: "A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way. The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty...Liberty has never lasted long in a democracy, nor has it ever ended in anything better than despotism."

As an interesting tidbit:

Democracy, 1927, The U. S. Army Training Manual: “A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic, negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.”


TR

Nothing makes me feel better about life than rereading the Founding Fathers.

Particularly Jefferson.

;)

Not exactly, Magician. Hitler was appointed by Paul Von Hindenberg, who was the winner of the election in 1932. There was no election in 1933, so Hitler couldn't have been the default winner. The power that Hitler gained he gained by getting the Reichstag to give him those powers. There was a referendum in 1934 (after Von Hindenberg's death) regarding those powers (90% of those who voted approved of Hitler maintaining those powers). Regardless, Hitler was never elected to any position.

And unlike the "elections" of Baathist Iraq or the USSR, the election of King Faysal seems to be actually the will of the Iraqi people (although Stalin probably would have been elected even in free elections).

Just so you can tell people that you have heard a Muslim call for FREEDOM.

http://www.usindo.org/Briefs/2005/SBY%20Speech.htm

Again GH, leave the twisting for the uninitiated.

I was in Indonesia a few years ago, lived and worked with the military to include the Indonesian Special Forces. I know what a “repressive” government is and how it operates.

Indonesia is a repressive government. I have witnessed soldiers beating civilians, forcing a busload of civilians off the road into a ditch because they were moving too slow, causally breaking windows and side mirrors of civilian vehicles to allow military vehicles to move unimpeded, using a farmers land for a drop zone, placing small children in harms way by parachute jumping over their heads as they worked in the farmers fields, I could go on and on but you get the drift. I've told you before don’t use Indonesia as a model of a noble moslem country, its not, I've been there.

Are you now going to question my years of active duty Special Forces training concerning insurgencies and terrorism, what they are, how they start, WHY they start, many due to repressive governments?

I can assure you I can identify a repressive government 10 out of 10 times.

De Oppresso Liber

Team Sergeant