al-Hasani
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2013
- Messages
- 14,060
- Reaction score
- 43
- Country
- Location
I'm not too well known with that monarchy so I can't talk a lot about it.
What I mean is that it doesn't matter a lot whether (Hashemite) monarchy will rule or the state will be ruled by a president ( republic ). Both can do well and did well in Iraq pre 1980. The only main difference is that most Arab monarchy rulers don't have ideologies of conquest and resistance like most republic leaders have in this region be it Saddam, Nasser, Ba'ath Syria, Islamic Iranian regime. All looking to expand through any way possible paving the road for trouble for both them and neighbors which is what we still see today.
For example in case of Iraq, PM Abadi or Hashemite king it's irrelevant if both are secular which they are. Hashemites coming to power won't suddenly stop terror and bring stability with the current regional religious tensions, they would seek good relations with the US, leading to US forces stationed in the country who would deter neighbors and allow the country at least 10 years to rebuild and regain it's strength. That's why someone like the Jordanian king would do better then Maliki who has an ideology that goes on cost of the country and it's people, he kicked the Americans out knowing the army was not ready but it would go well with better relations with Iran and his own resistance ideology against Israel/US/Gulf etc.
Nevertheless history has happened and we're at a different time now, the Hashemite solution is unrealistic anyway. The current President & PM seem a lot better then the former ones, this time both are educated ones with doctorate degrees. The US is also planning to send more troops to Baghdad, if you ask me it looks like in a year of time they will have quite a lot of forces in the country again, the US generals never agreed on leaving except for Obama who gained his votes with that promise many say. For whatever reason it is that they want to return it looks like they will and have let ISIS go on it's way for that reason denying any co-operation with Maliki, he asked for drone attacks on ISIS a year before this happened but they kept denying, after all why would they help him while he kicked them out. Now they can return to Iraq and Maliki has been removed, something they might have wanted after all.
I am not propagandizing anything personally. My opinion on this matter is pretty straightforward. I emphasized that people should choose who their representatives/rulers shall be but if the rulers are not chosen democratically (royalty) the people can still easily remove them if they really want. For instance the House of Saud or the Hashemites in Jordan would not even last 24 hours if people were against them by large but they are not. Besides this is not the Middle Ages were 1 person decides everything. You have people from all sectors of the society that are ruling the country and more importantly the people are the most important thing. In many ways it is not that different from the systems in Europe aside from the people having much less to say. Yet there is still a tradition, at least in the Arab world, of direct democracy. Known as majlis. Might have heard about it:
Majlis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In KSA every average Ibrahim or Fatima no matter who he or she is has a right to make direct complains and get into touch with the actual rulers of a given city, province etc. Not through third-parties like in Europe that never reaches the decision makers most of the time! You have no guarantee of your complains, wishes, comments etc. being met but nor do you have that in the West. At least the rulers will know about the realities of the people and will try to address them at a small level at first face to face often or via representatives. I am just talking about the Majlis here. Of course this is not the main instrument to reach out to people or get to know about their situation. You have an entire civil society for that. This is actually a good thing that I want to keep regardless of future political systems.
I don't particularly care about the system of governance. Be it monarchy (constitutional or not) or republic. Netherlands and Denmark are both constitutional monarchies yet the royal families do not have any political power anymore and are more a form of tradition. Yet not long ago they held political power. For me it is about the leaders and a system's ability to work for the best of the country and its people under each and every countries special and diverse tasks and struggles. Netherlands and the ME are two different worlds. You cannot compare it. So is Japan and Congo. So is Brazil and Vietnam etc. So is Afghanistan and Denmark or North Korea and France etc.
One should not look at events that happened in the ME in the 1930's or complain of lack of reforms to people who never held full power or look at those events with modern glasses. It makes no sense.
Having said that then I have little doubt that Iraq would be a much more prosperous and stable country today had it been a monarchy and it would have had much more educated, sane and coolheaded leaders. Moreover much better relations not only with the West but most neighbors and a better reputation in the world. Moreover I doubt that a monarchy in Iraq would be absolute. It would be more like Jordan (especially Jordan) or UAE which are largely success stories politically COMPARED TO THE STANDARDS OF THE ME.
Last edited: