Toronto Escorts

The Rise of the Theocratic State in Iraq?

The Scholar

New member
Jan 4, 2004
261
0
0
Folks:

It is not possible to present a proper academic paper as it would be too long and would present an intellectual challenge to some of the so called 'self-styled political scientists' in the Politics forum. :p

Thus, these are some thoughts that I have on this particular day!

On February 1, 1979, the Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Tehran, Iran after 15 years in exile. The Shah of Iran, despite his military power, even with the support of the United States, was humiliated into fleeing the country a few weeks earlier.

The same theocracy rules in Iran to this day. Iran, under the Shah, was not near the military power that Iran is today with the nuclear capability that it is procuring for itself.

Let's fast forward to today. Saddam Hussein has been overthrown and is in custody. He faces what could be the trial of the century; if such a trial takes place. He was, at one time, a military power in the Middle East. By the end of his regime, Iraq was a shell of its former military strength.

Election results are not known yet. However, I suspect the Shiites will command a strong majority. Ultimately, the individual who will end up with the real power will be Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. Once again, a cleric.

Iraq will slowly become a theocracy; whether the United States and the Middle East wants it or not. Simply put: the Shiite majority was surpressed for so long that they are savouring the political power that they have earned. They will not let go of this thirst for power.

The Grand Ayatollah is so revered that his statements are accepted as being 'divine'. You cannot compete with this. The United States did not want elections to begin with. They had planned to try and maintain power thru an appointed body. It did not work. To have tried to maintain power the way Paul Bremer had in mind would have been a challenge to the Grand Ayatollah. The latter would have prevailed because of the loyalty he commanded among the religious faithful.

Now, we have an election that surely has produced a strong mandate for the Shiite majority to rule Iraq. This means the Grand Ayatollah will be the main influence on the evolving Iraqi state. There are many questions that we can ask. One of them is: does the evolving Iraqi state have a plan to strengthen its armed forces and possibly seek nuclear capability? Obviously not now, but what about in five, ten or fifteen years?

Lord Byron stated that "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"!

I suspect that as the political power of the Grand Ayatollah grows and his hold over the masses strengthens; we will see the beginning of the rise of the theocratic state. With this will come the desire to maintain that political power. Another question: have we replaced one dictator with possibly another dictator, even if a benevolent one?

Regards.
 

auto doctor

New member
Aug 25, 2004
549
0
0
In a Korn field
www.korn.com
Dear Scholar

Iraq is more than just a state of theocracy (what ever that is). What ever political party will control the country. The americans will ensure it is a democratic state for a long time.

The bigger picture is the surounding countries of the middle east are nervous of democracy. Egypt, Iran, Kuwait, Jordon, Syria and many others are regimes. A free Iraq will worry the regimes. The thirst for freedom will spread to other nations. IMHO I believe some of these regimes are fueling the fighting now in Iraq.

Freedom in Iraq spells doom for the regimes in the eyes of the dictators.

Oh yeah I forgot....good luck on your academic paper
 
Y

yychobbyist

Scholar, you raise some interesting issues which go to to the very root of what is happening in Iraq today.

From news reports it seems as if al-Sistani will support a non-theocratic form of government, but then again it's not as if he's really in a position to say otherwise. Saying you are only in support of theocracy at this point would likely result in a one way ticket to a windowless room in Cuba where some American trollop would smear fake menstrual blood in your face.

But I digress.

What intrigues me most about these elections is the very real possibility and, I would argue, the likelihood that what will result in Iraq years down the road is a democratically elected form of government which does not have truly democratic principles. We should not forget that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union sponsored regular elections in the Soviet Union and that the Ba'athists did the same in Iraq so from an uneducated point of view there were indeed elections in these countries though no educated person would every say that either of these countries were democratic. I think the same will happen again in Iraq in the future, though the rule of that government must surely be not as totalitarian as it was in the past.

Now this raises interesting questions from a U.S. perspective. Freedom is allegedly on the march but it is very possible to have a democracy which merely pays lip service to freedom. Will the U.S. support such a system? Obviously they will if it is in their national (ie. economic and security) interests. This goes to show that, in my view, the U.S. plays the game of realpolitik as well as any country. They can talk a good game but when it comes down to the crunch, principles and flowery rhetoric get pushed aside in favour of cold hard reality.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts