Iraq just like many states in the world which have endowment of religion, need to liberated from 1) perception on what religion is, the benefits for it, and so forth.

2). Understanding that adherence to religion is not the answer for peace and tranquility rather the source of perpetuating differences among them. In this view, Iraq has no such beg problem, it is a question of realizing that they are one, that religion is not the source of their lives, but loving one another. This is true to many poor countries. If you trace the world over, the more the strong the belief on religion, the more one perceive that others are wrong, and thus the more the differences (disagreements), finally wars, and the likes.

People not only of Iraq, must realize that religion should not be the source for differences. People should worship work, work, work and gain value of life out of work. Governments must lower the importance of religion. Because religion are groups. Governments must advocate fear for God (not religion) through doing good things, including loving your fellow. 

Dear Asaad,

the question what should be for ensuring the proper political stability in the country seems not to be fully answered. for democratic stability, you need social and economic stability, but what should be the first and how to reach is always questionable. firstly, you never know if the society is prepared for a democracy, if from a cultural perspective people see liberalism and other values of democracy appropriate to its historical development. from my perspective, is a mistake to force some societies to have a proper democracy at one moment. for everything you need a time, is estimated that you need to have a three generational change of society to gain a characteristic of civil society needed for democracy.

The old theories (Lipset, Rustow, Moore) are saying that for right functioning democracy you need to reach firstly socio-economic development, but see what is going on in  Europe and US...socio-economic development is not enough, unfortunately. the price, by which the welfare is reached, has proven itself as very high.

further, to reach some level of socio-economic stability is not an easy task as politicians promise. 

best wishes, Patricia

Dear Asaad and Patricea,

I have enjoyed reading the answer of Patricea. The issue of political instability in Iraq if looked at glance may seem is due democracy. However, if you look at it systemically; considering many factors, looking behind, sideways and in front, you will realize that instability is caused by other factors other than democracy. Let us think together, you have  argued correctly, in my humble view,   on whether the old theories which relate economic strength , democracy and of course peace are always supra. Perception is critical in containing peace, hence stability. In this world we strive to manage perceptions. Realities are there to stand. Societies are not competent enough to analyze issues to come to the truth. Hence, they are driven by feelings rather than realities.  The major alteration of perception is created by what we believe. I have been in Iraq as an election specialist to facilitate the designing of an electoral system which could balance the Sheer and Sun  (The major Islamic groups). The generality of instability could be said is a result of disparity of religion and inner course of what each perceive to be the cause of societal problems. It is the issue of perception. In our society not only Iraq, people trust God through religion (it is bad), hence, the good the message preached by religious leaders, the higher the positive perception is created among people, and thus the less the societal differences felt by each, finally peace. I advice that we read a paper of our colleague titled " Africa development bailout:  striking a balance between religion, peace and tranquility" (Norman, 2014). I think that it is only when the regime of Iraq will come to ignore groups through creating a national religion which is love, love, love among each of them.  Why ? whenever a ruler is from religion, the perception of the other is negative. Thanks. 

Dear Patricia,

Regarding your question. What are the best ways to establish Iraqi state?

The question calls us to ask other two questions.

1) Do people of Iraq consider that the regime of Saddam Hussein was good  or bad for them?

2) What is there view regarding the present regime versus Saddam Hussein regime? Equally current system of governance versus Saddam Hussein?

I am posing these two questions since the joy people enjoy  regarding their rulers do not necessarily originate from plural politics. We have seen some leaders who emerge in power through what is called democratic elections, and they end up in huge embezzlement of public (government) funds, and they jeopardize the economy.  I suggest that for any true democracy to prevail and nourish, citizen must be informed and liberated from  hinges of religion. Once this is done people will elect leaders on the base of competence rather than religion, hence a new state which will have strong pillars. As of now how do you get a president? what will be the driving factors for electing this and leaving another? How will the head of state form Cabinet ministers? Any body appointed will be linked with a certain group of faith? It is a challenge let us discuss. Thank you for posing this question.

Thank you.

I agree with the answers above. But how do you put this in practice? For that I think we have to take a look at how conflict ridden states finally established a democracy. Taking the example of India or more recently East Timor. Both the countries had a long drawn process of writing the constitution after a long discussion on what should be included in it. Representation to all the groups in the constituent assembly is a must. It can be overseen by a impartial body like the UN (as it did in East Timor). If all the groups are given a hearing and their needs are addressed then that democracy can survive longer than the one that is forced upon it.

Democracy is the best form of government for Iraq as it was for India. The needs of a diverse population can only be addressed through democracy and not any other form of government. Democracy that is suited to the Iraqis is the answer. People of Iraq will have to decide on how to design that democracy.

Dear Norman,

concerning your questions

1) i have no clue if people consider Hussein regime good or bad, we can only measure it through the public opinion. nevertheless, even in post-communist young democracies there was research stated that people wanted change of  political representatives, not the whole regime. but you never know what the future will bring, everybody wants better tomorrows and if somebody is promising you better future you are believer, for me it is kind of religion believing that democracy saves me from bad socio-economic status (which unfortunately, is not true as history and contemporary research is telling us, see compatibility of democracy and capitalism causing disparities, inequalities, fears, xenophobia etc which is going on in western civilization) btw you can not generalize the public opinion, for some the Hussein regime was working, for some not, same as with democracy, i am just saying that democracy is ideology based on belief in welfare state, is the  best one to reach it partially and is the best one compatible with liberal capitalism. oof course the example of china is saying sth else, but we should be aware of it. further, there is a question if people really know what is the best for them?  

2) the same thoughts, i am not an expert for Iraq political system, but i do not want to underestimate the culture and religion. you can not abandon something which is present for thousands of years for something which is promising you the future. tradition, habits, culture are main determinants  of everyday life, and sometimes i have a feeling that scientists are forgetting what is the identity of people and what really construct them. btw the pressure of economic globalization and  a change of society is present and politics should reflect it, but appropriately concerning the needs of people. but not every country in the world is the same as US, Britain, France etc...we should not colonize other countries with just promises of great democracy if we see that in established democracies sth is wrong with it.

best wishes ;)

Patricia

From my experience of Iraqi regime in the past and now . there is no way to not understand the difference because  the state criteria was existed rather than now , and the democracy as an ideology proved its political  failure , the Iraqi society are tired and need to live in calm and peace whatever type of system implicated . 

There is no doubt that is every war makes ample use of lies and deception, thus, the idea turned from all that to the proposed partitioning of Iraq in 2007. The war would determine Iraq’s fate as an independent country and a homeland of civilisations that have contributed much to humanity and its achievements. It is important here to reflect on what Iraq represents the whole region since the 2003 war is taking a serious off-ramp lately towards partitioning of this country as the news show it from day to day. A whole country’s plight unnoticed as it has seen for more than thirteen years by now. Not even a casual crime is allowed that easily to turn into an archived cold case as long as there are concrete proofs and alibis, yet, the Iraq war of 2003 had been made to be transformed from an invasion to a war on terrorism.

Norman,

Religion has been part of the body and soul of the Iraqi people for thousands of years.

how can you just ignore it or set it aside? Impossible to do with or without democracy.

Unfortunately in order for Iraq to survive as one country, it must be divided into three autonomous states but under one armed forces. One Sunni Arab, One Shia, and one Kurdish. They could work out an agreement to rotate the presidency every so many years. And the central government must be in Baghdad.

Hi All,

The division in Iraq has always been along sectarian lines and has continued to be a game of one upmanship!  The challenge going forward is how can the international community somehow be a conduit to resolving past conflicts that continue to plague the daily interpersonal relationships between the Sunni's, Shiite and Kurds?  Perhaps a "True Resolution Consortium" might be of some use in helping paved the way to devising a 3-part equal representative government that could chair the concerns and grievances of all citizens of Iraq, which would grow the sense of national identity and unity as a nation.

Bear in mind there is no easy solution or way forward, but the effort has to be unified and taking a look at the South African TRC of 1994 might be a good starting point.

Succeeding in implementing a new state model in Iraq starts by seeing it through the Iraqi prism and not the Western one. The major error that we encounter nowadays is that the West is trying to implement democracy in a region where this concept is practically unknown and people are accustomed to different ways of dealing with each other, which in a way can also be viewed as kind of a local democracy, such as the elderly meetings among tribes to find a common solution for an ongoing problem. That is said, today the challenge would be to make all parties in Iraq, the same in Syria for instance and all other countries with ethnic diversity to accept the difference and share the power equally with the Other. The problem is that all of them are focusing on taking the power and isolating the other or getting their vengeance after the other has been oppressing them for years... Finding a suitable solution cannot be by eliminating the difference in the Middle East, but rather by strengthening it but in the same time pushing it to accept the difference. Each community needs to remain proud of its heritage by the state should belong to all.

The main question is to find out if all Iraqis from all ethnic background would like to continue living together as IRAQIS and not as Shi'ites, Sunnis, Kurds, Christians (all denominations) and other minorities. Should this be the answer, then the best model I can see would be an Iraqi State based on a bicameral system where the upper chamber represents the interests of those communities, and where the lower chamber is more focused on running the institutions that should be deconfessional if possible, but most importantly depending on the power structure that should be chosen and voted on by all parties, the president of the country should not be issued from the same community, but rather have this position be based on the musical theory concept that is a turning mandate among all communities for a duration of a three-year term for each of them. It should also be the same concept of the musical chair theory for the other presidencies as well, the one of the Upper and Lower Chambers, the Constitutional Court, the Judicial Upper Court (Supreme Court) as well as the Armed forces where all communities would share these position in a equilibrium manner thus avoiding the take-over of one community of all powers but rather pushing all communities toward a consensus over major decisions. 

Of course, there are turning combinations that ensure such a consensus while other don't. This is why those encouraging consensus should be kept under the Rule of Law to succeed in implementing such a model in a real participative democracy respecting the traditions and the cultures of the Iraqi people and not being imposed by the Western views of a Western democracy that cannot be implemented in the Middle East due to its history, ethnic diversity, culture differences and tribal traditions.

This is the model that I am personally working on but focusing on Lebanon to start with. a Model that can be adapted to all countries with ethnic and religious diversity, such as Syria, Iraq, some African countries, etc.

Dear Mr. Alain-Michel Ayache

Thanks for your reply and I would like to say that the democracy is not a doctrine rather a method . the democracy may not be the best model in Iraqi state and society . your suggestion about upper and lower chambers is the best model of their representation . the democracy may deepen tribal, ethical, religious differences .

Well isn't a bicameral government a democracy? how do you choose people to these chambers? a Democracy is a system where people choose their representatives to rule. It can be presidential or parliamentary. What you are talking about is similar to a parliamentary democracy. The rotating presidency was also practiced in some governments for a period of time. But is that practical?

For certain areas of the world it is, however, in the Middle East where there is a tradition among tribes to concert regarding many issues,, democracy stops at the level of such "informal forums" or meetings of the elderly or tribes' leaders. While democracy as we know it in the West is difficult to be applied as such since people are generally oppressed in these countries and a multiparty system is unknown or controlled by one major ideology, bringing a bicameral system, which is a stable system, is a plausible solution to bring forward the interest of the diverse groups that compose the population in an enlarged forums that discusses the problems and eventual solutions that need a consensus to be reached. Hence, the Upper Chamber would be the best place for this "forum" to take place and all concerned parties would be represented either equally or proportionally and the choice of the members of the upper chamber would be decided by each of the represented groups. That would leave the lower chamber free of any ethnic hassle making it dedicated to running the country avoiding thus any paralysis. The representation of the members of the Lower Chamber would be by general election.

Of course I cannot explain the whole model in a few lines, but the aim is to implement a beginning of a democratic system that will make all parties equally responsible in running their state and maintaining its internal stability and peace.

As for the practicality, it might be the only choice available for the time being to maintain the cohesion of those States and avoid their implosion into multiple little confessional State with all the displacement problems and the change in demographic representation that this will cause. 

As for Presidential or Parliamentary democracy, this model can be a third view since unlike the UK model, what I am suggesting is giving still powers to the President, a power that can be counterbalanced by the the upper Chamber and in some cases by the lower one. It is a bit complicated to explain again in a few lines, but it is a possibility to create a sustainable model that encourages dialogue and cooperation instead of confrontational relationship among society members. Let's say it is a particular mixed system...

Thanks to all answers

our focus view is derive from theoretical observe not from what the present Iraqi  regime outcome . Iraq as a state capable to defeat his collapse if their society need to establish themselves together and Iraqi as a society capable to establish themselves together if they have their general will . 

A future Iraqi regime needs to abandon the politics of sectarianism. A similar case can be drawn in Lebanon with its long history of sectarianism and failed state.

Where ever ethnic clashes out break, it become hard to bring peace. Iraq is a state of ethnic diversity, after Saddam those came to power who were deprived by Saddam regime. democracy will take time in Iraq to prevail. War between Saudi Arabia and Iran is also adding fuel to fire in ethnic problems in whole Middle east too.