The 4 malign Cs of Iraqi politics: Consensus= Confusion, Contradiction and Corruption

This article is my response to Mr. Adel Haba’s article http://www.ahewar.org/debat/show.art.asp?aid=173024
Dear Mr Haba
I agree fully with your call to abandon the sectarianism and ethnicity on which the Iraqi politics and government are based. To achieve a democratic, modern Iraq you call on the religious parties to abandon their religious essence and become secular-like parties. I am not sure that these parties will do this willingly, and you seem to overstate the importance of some propagandistic gestures by Almaliki or some others, as they are still too sporadic and erratic to tell that they have become a systematic trend. Also, to rely on a person, rather than on institutions to create a positive e change is risky and the history of Iraq has delivered many devastating examples to prove this fact.
I wonder also how your call on the religious parties to abandon their essence or identity (and I know you as a secular and an enghlitened person) is consistent, for example, with the policy of National or Political Consensus adopted by the Iraqi Communist Party, as exemplified by the interview with its Secretary (http://www.iraqcp.org/members4/0090525w9.htm).
In this interview, the Secretary speaks of his fears of potential catastrophic scenarios to rationalize the necessity of policy of National Consensus, ignoring, by doing so, the catastrophes that are unfolding every day in Iraq. Additionally, politics based on fear of what could happen, is neither politics of principles nor is it conducive to seeing the reality as it is and without distortion. Fear is a paralyzing emotional force and it would have been wonderful if the Secretary told us of any success, personal or political, achieved by operating on the basis of fear.
Fear leads to hypocrisy, distortion of reality and obsession with wishful thinking. One needs to be brave and have a principled stance on the sufferings and pain people of Iraq go through day and night. They do not need ideologically shallow talks that do nothing to relief people’s suffering. What such talks do is only prolong the suffering by asking people to wait for a better day, for the earthly paradise. And the earthly paradise, as its religious equivalent; the heavenly paradise, is eternally elusive.
The question we need to ask ourselves is; how politics of National Consensus could lead to the abolishment of sectarianism and ethnicity. National Consensus means agreement with the bad current reality. It is not a program for change. The Secretary of the Party has delivered no coherent rational to resolve this contradiction. On the contrary, he has muddied the water more and more.
He, the Secretary, asks and I am paraphrasing him; what could have we done if we had not played this game, that is implicitly, participating in this government? He goes on asking; should have we gone on shouting fiery mottos? He is the Secretary and he should have known better, since he, by saying so, is offending all those who have been in oppositions every where (including the Iraqi communists while they were opposed to Saddam) and he could have done something positive to Iraqis if he had relied on the honest, morally sound patriotic and democratic people of Iraq, and there are so many of them. He just needs to spend more time with them, rather than on rubbing shoulders with his parliamentary colleagues. The people he chooses to sidestep are reliable and trustworthy, in total contradiction to many of those in the government or parliament.
The Secretary (and it is always he or one of his close associates. Well, why not?) ridicules those opposed to the notion of National Consensus, because they see it as a disguised notion of corruption and non-democratic politics, as evidenced by the bitter reality. He labels those opposed to this policy as ‘lazy’, and I do not know what he means by this, and being in government, as evidence indicates, is not a guarantee of hard working, and in the majority of cases its just the opposite, and many of the parliamentarians could be considered as members of the a club of the disguised unemployment, because of their erratic work and chronic absence despite their being paid ridiculously high salaries. However, seeing the reality through the eyes of the Secretary, the government is certainly not lazy, particularly when it comes to stealing and robbery, and his parliamentary colleagues are certainly not lazy when they are working hard to have the highest salaries a politician can earn, not only in Iraq but even in many richer countries,
or wasting a great deal deal of time on discussing the passing of laws violating the civil rights like the law prohibiting alcohol.
You might say that your views are personal and have nothing to do with the party I am referring to, namely, the Communist Party. And it is fair enough of you to voice such an objection if you see fit. However, the question remains; How can your calls on religious partiers realize themselves if secular forces adopt polices perpetuating the status quo of sectarianism and ethnicity?
To sum it up, it is totally insufficient, and even immeasurably harmful, to limit ourselves to labeling a reality as bad while adopting policies and taking measures consistent with this actual, bad reality, rather than the wished-for, good reality. The difference is as fundamental as it is obvious.
Regards

Rate the article
Bad	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Very good
Result : 100%							Participated in the vote : 7