excerpts from Jeff
“Nothing will happen today. There will be no breakthrough, nothing. It is just something we have to get off our backs. We will meet in parliament and then will go and sit at the negotiating table [about forming the coalition government] and yell at each other.”
-Iraqi Parliamentarian, 16 March 2006
I feel a little remiss in not commenting on the status of Iraqi politics lately, because there IS quite a bit to talk about. If you are interested in American politics, Iraqi politics are even more uptight, dramatic and punishing, like moving from high school freestyle wresting to WWE. And like the WWE, half the time you’re not sure if the guy yelling at you is being serious or just yelling because the crowd wants him to yell. And Iraq has a lot of people yelling at the moment, so the comparison isn’t too far off. I would normally update you on who is who and which party wants what, but at this point the situation is probably a little too bleak to waste the print. I don’t mean to say that it won’t work out, I mean that chronicling everything that’s happened would be like giving you a line-by-line on the Articles of Confederation. Even if it’s accurate, it may not even matter, because it’s probably not what the government is going to ultimately look like.
So the short version: the largest party in Parliament, the United Iraqi Alliance, nominated al-Jaafari as the next Prime Minister. Due to their large plurality in Parliament, whomever they nominate will probably become Prime Minister (like Republican primaries in Idaho!), so what would normally be an intra-party issue has become a national issue, and thus all the other parties are putting inside political pressure on the UIA, pressure that should normally be channeled into the parliamentary forum. Thus, the parliament has yet to sit down and elect a Prime Minister and appoint a cabinet. It met last week for the first time, and recessed without closing the session. The UIA is predominately Shiite, though it faces opposition from a few Shia radicals like Muqtada al-Sadr, who is currently the Cindy Sheehan of Iraq (“Every problem in Iraq is directly caused by the United States’ military presence here,” is the basic message of every speech), if Cindy were ever to amass a militia and patrol the Shia suburbs of Baghdad setting things on fire, and I don’t believe that’s scheduled until next year’s bus tour. Whether or not the parliament plows through its current divisions and actually seats a working government, there are still a number of challenges to face, and it’s made me dissect politics down to a very rudimentary level to be able to talk about and digest the issues. Building a government is, in the words of Eddie Izzard, “Rather exciting in a really boring sort of way,” and Middle Eastern culture adds a slimy spin to an already overslimed profession. So slime along with me, and I’ll try to break down some of the problems in the most upbeat and incongruently humorous way possible. Ready?? Okay!
First Problem in Iraq: 30 years of socialism. Check this out: There are NO major privatized industries in Iraq. Except for agriculture, I guess. The oil industry, the construction industry, the banking industry, the power industry; these were all run by the State under Saddam. The Baath Party was a Socialist party, so when the government fell, all the major industries suddenly had no central control. In America, all these industries can still produce with or without government control. They run on supply and demand, not on bureaucracy. But a fully intact market economy run by private individuals is one asset that Iraq doesn’t have right now. It all has to be built with foreign help, which is a feat in itself. An Army rebuilding the US after 30 years of tyranny would be able to employ energy companies to fix the power grid, construction companies to rebuild the roads, and banks to reprint and distribute the currency. All they would really need is the money to pay them for it. That’s what private industry DOES- it converts money into services. But in Iraq, construction projects have to be planned and managed by the Army, who then hires small local sub-contractors, who may or may not be reliable. The power grid has to be constantly repaired because there aren’t any major companies who maintain the entire grid- that was always the job of the state. And local banks constantly run out of money because each bank is still run by the local provincial government who has to monitor the cash flow of every location. You should try to give this to a private enterprise, but there ARE no state-wide private enterprises. There are only local small businesses, and the state. If you don’t have major private industries run by private individuals, all the industrial money in the country is up for government grabs (like oil money). The Minister of Oil basically runs the whole oil industry. The Minister of the Interior basically runs the utility industry. It begins to work like a bad game of monopoly, really. But who else is going to do it? Growing large businesses that can handle the demands of the entire nation takes a lot of time and free market energy which government can encourage, but not command. You just can’t do that in three years. Hence, what would otherwise be boring old jobs in the US, like Secretary of Agriculture, suddenly have a lot of money and power flowing through them. So instead of appointing the best agriculturist in the country to be Sec of Ag, I believe I just might put my brother in that position. See how it works?
Second problem in Iraq: complete lack of technocrats. So who SHOULD be Secretary of Agriculture? Well, in America, there are plenty of people to choose from. How about the CEO of Ore-Ida? How about the former Secretary of Agriculture for the state of Michigan? How about the Governor of Nebraska, who was maybe once himself a farmer before he became a politician and a member on the board of directors at John Deere? These are all people who are BOTH technical experts AND statesmen, which is who you want on your cabinet- technocrats. But in Iraq, politicians are mainly just politicians. The fight for cabinet positions currently has nothing to do with who is technically qualified for the details of the job. It’s more of a favorable endorsement that you get from your party. Even if a party WANTED to nominate a technocrat, skilled leaders of industry are noticeably lacking (see Problem #1).
Third problem in Iraq: 30 years of no native political opposition. Since the Baath Party was the only political party in Iraq, aside from some Kurdish parties operating in relative autonomy, there were no native political candidates with any experience running Iraq who weren’t Baathists. Almost all the key players in Iraq today (like Allawi) were exiled from the country, and living in Europe, the US, or in other Middle Eastern countries, for the past 5, 10, or 20 years. So when Saddam’s regime fell, all the experience of actually running the country fell with him, and opposition parties were all behind the power curve due to either their absence from the country, or their inexperience in having political power. Imagine electing a president who hadn’t lived in the US for 15 years. If an invading Army had to depose the evil George W. Bush from office, there are plenty of Democrats who would love the job, and have experience being governors or Senators. But in Iraq, there WERE no native opposition parties to choose from. This is having to be built from the ground up as well, and most of the current leaders in Iraq are somewhat out of touch with the Iraqi people.
Fourth problem in Iraq: ye ole tradition of using political position for status and personal gain. The concept of the politician as a “public servant” is virtually nonexistent here. Americans are no fans of their own politicians, but at least we have the smug satisfaction of knowing we can always recall or impeach the bastards, and, failing that, at least they won’t be in office for more than a few years. Or you can move to another state, if they are on the state level. Additionally, media pressure actually MEANS something in the US, regardless of how much we distrust the media as an institution. A few years ago the mayor of Boise stepped down from office at the opening hint of a scandal, and a relatively minor scandal at that (do my Boisean friends even remember what it was?), before an investigation could even be done. He apparently knew he was cooked. The locals might shake their heads in shame, but do we realize what a rarity that is, worldwide? A mayor of a town steps down from power as soon as the story breaks! Without even a legal charge! Our politicians are actually quite leashed up by public opinion in the West, and the fact that we demand it of them and actually get it is quite remarkable. Here in Middle East, there is no such established tradition yet. A politician rules for his own status, and that is about it. A governor or Prime Minister resigning for any sort of pressure besides the blast of an RPG is almost unheard of, and it will be interesting to see if this coming session of Parliament will see any change to that.
Now that I think of it, the virtue of politics in the West might be that we make the business so darn unrewarding. News shows talking about you, Jon Stewart making fun of you, tabloids exposing you, commentators belittling you. Why, it’s like being a movie star without the sex and salary. And you’re not even allowed to be a Scientologist. How many little boys really want to grow up to be the next Senator from Wyoming? It’s kind of…I dunno, stressfully boring. Unglamorous. This is also why, for all its partisan hyped-up drama, the Bill Clinton impeachment said something meaningful about Western politics, too. “Aw, come on” every great powerful man gets to have his mistresses! I mean, what fun is being president if you don?t get to keep a mistress?? But that was really the point, I guess. Being president isn’t supposed to be FUN. It’s supposed to be important. It?s supposed to be a duty. You?re basically supposed to be perfect. George Bush can’t even mispronounce two phrases without it being broadcast globally as testimony to his oratory ignorance. Sucks, doesn’t it? What a contrast from Middle Eastern politics, where the governor has basically the status of El Presidente of an island commune. You want better utilities for your neighborhood? Talk to El Presidente. You need a land deal to work out your way? Talk to El Presidente. You need El Presidente to take care of you? Then you might want to take care of El Presidente. It’s very much a status thing still, complete with bribe money flowing out the wazoo.
So it’s at once disheartening and, well, kind of expected. It’s important to note that most of the problems the political process in Iraq faces really have nothing to do with the Iraq War or the United States. I actually wish they did, because it would be much easier to fix them. The US is, as always, a convenient scapegoat, seeing as we came barging in all rudely and such. But in the end, political deadlock and corruption in Iraq will probably continue to look like political deadlock and corruption in every other Middle Eastern country, mainly because the institutions and values that make a responsive and functioning government possible just aren’t there yet. This isn’t to say they shouldn’t be built, though. Indeed, the only hope for the entire Middle East is to start building them, and to get serious about studying what makes them work. This doesn’t mean that Iraq will end up looking like America, nor does it really have to. But it does mean that there will have to be a certain willingness to learn from other parts of the world instead of blaming all other parts of the world. Japan went through this process, twice, much to its success. China is going through it now, to some extent. This region will have its turn as well, and I hope for their sake it goes well for them. Until that day, there will most likely be many frustrating days of WWE-style drama and yelling. Without as many body slams. Those are cool to watch, though, and I hear Jaafari can do a pretty awesome People’s Elbow.
And, finally, I suppose I should say something about the Three Year Anniversary of the Start of the Iraq War. I remember the week it started, actually. I was on Spring Break from the Academy and staying with a good friend of mine (hi Justin!), and the news was all ablur with the day-by-day maneuvers. Can I ask a question, though? Why is the Three Year Anniversary of the Start of the Iraq War significant? Did we celebrate the three year mark in Afghanistan? Do we keep a body count in Afghanistan and celebrate the 500th and 1000th death? Do we poll the American public on whether they think it was a good idea or not, and whether their opinion has changed since the beginning? Ah, how nice to be in a politically correct war. No one asks those questions. Clearly, a media who is very interested in how the public views the war is a media that has a bit of a problem with the war. Otherwise it wouldn’t ever ask the question. This isn’t to say the question isn’t relevant, of course. It just strikes me as conspicuously eager to hold a renewed debate on the war every March 18th, and every time the death toll reaches a round number. It’s as if they had new intellectual issues to introduce, rather than just hope emotional fatigue sets in and we all admit that it’s ANOTHER VIETNAM! Just 48,000 more deaths to go, God willing. There’s probably a reason the President’s speeches all sound the same, as do the anti-war posters, as they did three years ago. There just isn’t much more to debate on that side of the Atlantic that’s actually relevant to actual Iraqi problems. At least the yelling over on this side is a little more relevant and a little more entertaining. Though I’m sure Cheney could pound out a great choke slam for his own part, as a bit of an anniversary throwdown, perhaps. I’d probably even stay another year to see that!
-Iraqi Parliamentarian, 16 March 2006
I feel a little remiss in not commenting on the status of Iraqi politics lately, because there IS quite a bit to talk about. If you are interested in American politics, Iraqi politics are even more uptight, dramatic and punishing, like moving from high school freestyle wresting to WWE. And like the WWE, half the time you’re not sure if the guy yelling at you is being serious or just yelling because the crowd wants him to yell. And Iraq has a lot of people yelling at the moment, so the comparison isn’t too far off. I would normally update you on who is who and which party wants what, but at this point the situation is probably a little too bleak to waste the print. I don’t mean to say that it won’t work out, I mean that chronicling everything that’s happened would be like giving you a line-by-line on the Articles of Confederation. Even if it’s accurate, it may not even matter, because it’s probably not what the government is going to ultimately look like.
So the short version: the largest party in Parliament, the United Iraqi Alliance, nominated al-Jaafari as the next Prime Minister. Due to their large plurality in Parliament, whomever they nominate will probably become Prime Minister (like Republican primaries in Idaho!), so what would normally be an intra-party issue has become a national issue, and thus all the other parties are putting inside political pressure on the UIA, pressure that should normally be channeled into the parliamentary forum. Thus, the parliament has yet to sit down and elect a Prime Minister and appoint a cabinet. It met last week for the first time, and recessed without closing the session. The UIA is predominately Shiite, though it faces opposition from a few Shia radicals like Muqtada al-Sadr, who is currently the Cindy Sheehan of Iraq (“Every problem in Iraq is directly caused by the United States’ military presence here,” is the basic message of every speech), if Cindy were ever to amass a militia and patrol the Shia suburbs of Baghdad setting things on fire, and I don’t believe that’s scheduled until next year’s bus tour. Whether or not the parliament plows through its current divisions and actually seats a working government, there are still a number of challenges to face, and it’s made me dissect politics down to a very rudimentary level to be able to talk about and digest the issues. Building a government is, in the words of Eddie Izzard, “Rather exciting in a really boring sort of way,” and Middle Eastern culture adds a slimy spin to an already overslimed profession. So slime along with me, and I’ll try to break down some of the problems in the most upbeat and incongruently humorous way possible. Ready?? Okay!
First Problem in Iraq: 30 years of socialism. Check this out: There are NO major privatized industries in Iraq. Except for agriculture, I guess. The oil industry, the construction industry, the banking industry, the power industry; these were all run by the State under Saddam. The Baath Party was a Socialist party, so when the government fell, all the major industries suddenly had no central control. In America, all these industries can still produce with or without government control. They run on supply and demand, not on bureaucracy. But a fully intact market economy run by private individuals is one asset that Iraq doesn’t have right now. It all has to be built with foreign help, which is a feat in itself. An Army rebuilding the US after 30 years of tyranny would be able to employ energy companies to fix the power grid, construction companies to rebuild the roads, and banks to reprint and distribute the currency. All they would really need is the money to pay them for it. That’s what private industry DOES- it converts money into services. But in Iraq, construction projects have to be planned and managed by the Army, who then hires small local sub-contractors, who may or may not be reliable. The power grid has to be constantly repaired because there aren’t any major companies who maintain the entire grid- that was always the job of the state. And local banks constantly run out of money because each bank is still run by the local provincial government who has to monitor the cash flow of every location. You should try to give this to a private enterprise, but there ARE no state-wide private enterprises. There are only local small businesses, and the state. If you don’t have major private industries run by private individuals, all the industrial money in the country is up for government grabs (like oil money). The Minister of Oil basically runs the whole oil industry. The Minister of the Interior basically runs the utility industry. It begins to work like a bad game of monopoly, really. But who else is going to do it? Growing large businesses that can handle the demands of the entire nation takes a lot of time and free market energy which government can encourage, but not command. You just can’t do that in three years. Hence, what would otherwise be boring old jobs in the US, like Secretary of Agriculture, suddenly have a lot of money and power flowing through them. So instead of appointing the best agriculturist in the country to be Sec of Ag, I believe I just might put my brother in that position. See how it works?
Second problem in Iraq: complete lack of technocrats. So who SHOULD be Secretary of Agriculture? Well, in America, there are plenty of people to choose from. How about the CEO of Ore-Ida? How about the former Secretary of Agriculture for the state of Michigan? How about the Governor of Nebraska, who was maybe once himself a farmer before he became a politician and a member on the board of directors at John Deere? These are all people who are BOTH technical experts AND statesmen, which is who you want on your cabinet- technocrats. But in Iraq, politicians are mainly just politicians. The fight for cabinet positions currently has nothing to do with who is technically qualified for the details of the job. It’s more of a favorable endorsement that you get from your party. Even if a party WANTED to nominate a technocrat, skilled leaders of industry are noticeably lacking (see Problem #1).
Third problem in Iraq: 30 years of no native political opposition. Since the Baath Party was the only political party in Iraq, aside from some Kurdish parties operating in relative autonomy, there were no native political candidates with any experience running Iraq who weren’t Baathists. Almost all the key players in Iraq today (like Allawi) were exiled from the country, and living in Europe, the US, or in other Middle Eastern countries, for the past 5, 10, or 20 years. So when Saddam’s regime fell, all the experience of actually running the country fell with him, and opposition parties were all behind the power curve due to either their absence from the country, or their inexperience in having political power. Imagine electing a president who hadn’t lived in the US for 15 years. If an invading Army had to depose the evil George W. Bush from office, there are plenty of Democrats who would love the job, and have experience being governors or Senators. But in Iraq, there WERE no native opposition parties to choose from. This is having to be built from the ground up as well, and most of the current leaders in Iraq are somewhat out of touch with the Iraqi people.
Fourth problem in Iraq: ye ole tradition of using political position for status and personal gain. The concept of the politician as a “public servant” is virtually nonexistent here. Americans are no fans of their own politicians, but at least we have the smug satisfaction of knowing we can always recall or impeach the bastards, and, failing that, at least they won’t be in office for more than a few years. Or you can move to another state, if they are on the state level. Additionally, media pressure actually MEANS something in the US, regardless of how much we distrust the media as an institution. A few years ago the mayor of Boise stepped down from office at the opening hint of a scandal, and a relatively minor scandal at that (do my Boisean friends even remember what it was?), before an investigation could even be done. He apparently knew he was cooked. The locals might shake their heads in shame, but do we realize what a rarity that is, worldwide? A mayor of a town steps down from power as soon as the story breaks! Without even a legal charge! Our politicians are actually quite leashed up by public opinion in the West, and the fact that we demand it of them and actually get it is quite remarkable. Here in Middle East, there is no such established tradition yet. A politician rules for his own status, and that is about it. A governor or Prime Minister resigning for any sort of pressure besides the blast of an RPG is almost unheard of, and it will be interesting to see if this coming session of Parliament will see any change to that.
Now that I think of it, the virtue of politics in the West might be that we make the business so darn unrewarding. News shows talking about you, Jon Stewart making fun of you, tabloids exposing you, commentators belittling you. Why, it’s like being a movie star without the sex and salary. And you’re not even allowed to be a Scientologist. How many little boys really want to grow up to be the next Senator from Wyoming? It’s kind of…I dunno, stressfully boring. Unglamorous. This is also why, for all its partisan hyped-up drama, the Bill Clinton impeachment said something meaningful about Western politics, too. “Aw, come on” every great powerful man gets to have his mistresses! I mean, what fun is being president if you don?t get to keep a mistress?? But that was really the point, I guess. Being president isn’t supposed to be FUN. It’s supposed to be important. It?s supposed to be a duty. You?re basically supposed to be perfect. George Bush can’t even mispronounce two phrases without it being broadcast globally as testimony to his oratory ignorance. Sucks, doesn’t it? What a contrast from Middle Eastern politics, where the governor has basically the status of El Presidente of an island commune. You want better utilities for your neighborhood? Talk to El Presidente. You need a land deal to work out your way? Talk to El Presidente. You need El Presidente to take care of you? Then you might want to take care of El Presidente. It’s very much a status thing still, complete with bribe money flowing out the wazoo.
So it’s at once disheartening and, well, kind of expected. It’s important to note that most of the problems the political process in Iraq faces really have nothing to do with the Iraq War or the United States. I actually wish they did, because it would be much easier to fix them. The US is, as always, a convenient scapegoat, seeing as we came barging in all rudely and such. But in the end, political deadlock and corruption in Iraq will probably continue to look like political deadlock and corruption in every other Middle Eastern country, mainly because the institutions and values that make a responsive and functioning government possible just aren’t there yet. This isn’t to say they shouldn’t be built, though. Indeed, the only hope for the entire Middle East is to start building them, and to get serious about studying what makes them work. This doesn’t mean that Iraq will end up looking like America, nor does it really have to. But it does mean that there will have to be a certain willingness to learn from other parts of the world instead of blaming all other parts of the world. Japan went through this process, twice, much to its success. China is going through it now, to some extent. This region will have its turn as well, and I hope for their sake it goes well for them. Until that day, there will most likely be many frustrating days of WWE-style drama and yelling. Without as many body slams. Those are cool to watch, though, and I hear Jaafari can do a pretty awesome People’s Elbow.
And, finally, I suppose I should say something about the Three Year Anniversary of the Start of the Iraq War. I remember the week it started, actually. I was on Spring Break from the Academy and staying with a good friend of mine (hi Justin!), and the news was all ablur with the day-by-day maneuvers. Can I ask a question, though? Why is the Three Year Anniversary of the Start of the Iraq War significant? Did we celebrate the three year mark in Afghanistan? Do we keep a body count in Afghanistan and celebrate the 500th and 1000th death? Do we poll the American public on whether they think it was a good idea or not, and whether their opinion has changed since the beginning? Ah, how nice to be in a politically correct war. No one asks those questions. Clearly, a media who is very interested in how the public views the war is a media that has a bit of a problem with the war. Otherwise it wouldn’t ever ask the question. This isn’t to say the question isn’t relevant, of course. It just strikes me as conspicuously eager to hold a renewed debate on the war every March 18th, and every time the death toll reaches a round number. It’s as if they had new intellectual issues to introduce, rather than just hope emotional fatigue sets in and we all admit that it’s ANOTHER VIETNAM! Just 48,000 more deaths to go, God willing. There’s probably a reason the President’s speeches all sound the same, as do the anti-war posters, as they did three years ago. There just isn’t much more to debate on that side of the Atlantic that’s actually relevant to actual Iraqi problems. At least the yelling over on this side is a little more relevant and a little more entertaining. Though I’m sure Cheney could pound out a great choke slam for his own part, as a bit of an anniversary throwdown, perhaps. I’d probably even stay another year to see that!
posted by Mike at
12:18 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home