| |
THE
ROVING EYE
Iraq democratizing Iran?
By Pepe Escobar
Real indigenous democracy
does not seem to fit American plans for post-war Iraq -
at least for now. Paul Bremer, the American proconsul,
has said on the record that elections in Iraq are
"premature" - that's how he justified his personal ban,
last Saturday, on the election for governor of the holy
city of Najaf, which was supposed to take place this
coming Saturday and for which local political parties
had been preparing for over a month. Bremer invoked
technicalities, saying "there's no electoral law", "no
ballot boxes" and "no procedure" in place. Bremer, a
Pentagon favorite, former Henry Kissinger collaborator
and specialist in counter-terrorism, has no Middle East
- or democratic - experience. The delayed election
episode may have brought down his credibility among
Iraqis - and especially Shi'ites. Before that, in the
new, free Iraqi debating climate, people already knew
how Bremer had blamed Libya, Syria and especially Iran
as the main backers of terrorism.
Such has the
situation become in Iraq that China, of all regimes, has
called for "free and transparent elections" under the
supervision of the United Nations, as well as the
formation of a "largely representative" government.
Meanwhile, former Iranian president Ali Rafsanjani - the
real strongman behind Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah
Ali Khamenei - took his cue and predicted that the
American forces will eventually have to leave the Middle
East whether they like it or not.
Among all the
misunderstandings, the Shi'ites' overall strategy in
Iraq seems to be the one that is really sound. Instead
of just playing the demographic card - they comprise
more than 60 percent of the population - a substantial
part of the Shi'ite leadership is trying to accommodate
the Americans. That's the case of crucial characters
like Ayatollah Bakr al-Hakim, the leader of the Supreme
Assembly for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SAIRI), who
returned to Iraq after 23 years of exile in Iran. Even
while he relishes ironic commentaries on American
"democrats" who "refuse the Iraqis to elect their own
representatives", he wants no confrontation. In the face
of calls in some quarters for various forms of jihad
against the Americans, Hakim's reaction was extremely
measured, considering Bremer's delaying of the election
in Najaf, as Hakim's candidate had a very good chance of
winning.
The crucial game is being played in
Najaf, the holy city of 200,000 where Imam Ali is
buried, the cousin of Holy Prophet Mohammed and icon of
Shi'ism, assassinated in 661 in Kufa, near Najaf. Najaf
is struggling to become the capital of all 120 million
Shi'ites in the world, a de facto Shi'ite Vatican. Najaf
is already a crucial seat of power in the new Iraq, and
its expression par excellence is the powerful al-Hawza,
an institution that is a mix of religious authority,
political consciousness, guardian of the faith and
laboratory of Islamic identity. No wonder that at the
entrance of Najaf the banners read "We are all the
soldiers of al-Hawza".
Al-Hawza, created in the
year 992 to replace the 12th imam, is the institution
that forms the members of the clergy, and also where
fatwas - religious decrees - are issued. When
Asia Times Online was received in April by Sheikh Adnan
Shahmani, the spokesman for Sayyed Al-Sadr (son of the
famous imam al-Sadr, assassinated in Najaf in 1999), he
was very clear: "Al-Hawza is the word of Allah. To obey
al-Hawza is to obey Allah." Al-Hawza dictates the
religious rules to obey and the right path to follow. It
comprises around 150 schools, universities and
seminaries, nowadays with more than 5,000 students.
The doctors of the faith at al-Hawza have a
reputation of tolerance - and many religious leaders
have made clear that they don't want an Islamic Republic
in Iraq based on the Iranian model. But one crucial
issue will have to be solved one way or another: the
opposition between the proponents of a "general
vilaya" - the clerics interfering in public
matters - and "particular vilaya" - clerics
outside of political life. The Grand Ayatollah Sistani -
a moderate, and a Najaf icon - has already pronounced
himself in favor of a separation between religion and
politics.
There are no Desert Scorpion-style
operations in Shi'ite country. Najaf and the whole
Shi'ite south has met the American invasion and
occupation with no resistance. Unlike the Sunni triangle
around and north of Baghdad, there have been no attacks
against the Americans. The extremely influential Shi'ite
religious leaders congregated at al-Hawza have not
adhered to the calls towards a guerrilla war against the
invaders. On Friday prayers, there are no anti-American
slogans.
Compare this with Baghdad and
surrounding areas where US and Iraqi soldiers as well as
civilians continue to come under deadly attack, all of
which serve to steel the resolve of the Sunni Iraqi
resistance against what is widely perceived as an
insensitive and heavy-handed American approach.
This Tuesday, the "Iraqi Resistance Brigades",
an unknown group, has even claimed the authorship of
"all combat operations" against the Americans - at the
same time dismissing that they are working in tandem
with Saddam Hussein: as Asia Times Online reported on
May 28 (The Saddam intifada), Saddam has set
the official beginning of an anti-American intifada for
July 27. In a communique broadcast by Qatar television
station al-Jazeera, the Brigades qualify Saddam and his
followers as "enemies who have contributed to the loss
of the motherland". The Brigades refuse to be regarded
as Islamist extremists, and describe themselves as "a
group of young Iraqis and Arabs who believe in the
unity, freedom and Arabness of Iraq".
Shi'ites
of the SAIRI mould would be as proud as these Sunnis of
their Arabness, but they prefer a more subtle strategy.
It's true Americans have recovered by force some of the
buildings the SAIRI has occupied when they came back
from exile in Iran. And the SAIRI's military wing, the
Badr Brigades, has been officially dissolved. But
Shi'ite religious leaders are concerned with a much more
important matter. They are very much aware that the
absolute majority of Iraqis - Shi'ites included - want
peace and an opening towards the rest of the world.
Whatever violence has occurred has been directed against
former Ba'ath Party members and collaborators, and not
against the "occuberators" - as Iranians have been
referring to the Americans. Virtually all the main
Shi'ite religious leaders have prohibited violence as
everyone waits for the constitution of a legitimate
Iraqi government.
Shi'ites are fierce partisans
of democracy and the principle of "one person, one
vote". And as well as the Kurds, they also want
federalism: this, by the way, is the official position
of the SAIRI. Whatever American schemes are concocted to
minimize Shi'ite participation in a future Iraqi
government, they know that ultimately Shi'ites have the
demographic majority in their favor. And on top of it
there is the deliberate effort not to jeopardize the
departure of the Americans - which they believe could
happen in a year or two - by any kind of armed
offensive.
There are of course Shi'ites who want
no compromise with the Americans. And the Americans
worry about them - but mainly because of disinformation
(as Americans still believe that the SAIRI is an agent
from Tehran). The SAIRI is only one of six Islamic
parties that last Sunday created a "coordination
committee" in Najaf, beside five other "secular" Shi'ite
parties (there are no Sunnis in Najaf). It's interesting
to note that the SAIRI encouraged "peaceful
demonstrations" against the cancellation of the Najaf
election, unlike the traditional Da'awa Islamic Party,
which used to be considered "terrorist" and now is
conducting many talks with the Americans. Essentially,
the American "occuberators" should know that Shi'ites
are traditionally attached to free intellectual debate -
so there's no black-or-white or "you're with us or
against us" here. A few parties may not be on face value
as opposed to the Americans as they let it be known,
while others may profit to become more radicalized.
As for an Iranian point of view, there are fears
that the center of gravity for 120 million Shi'ites may
be displaced from the holy city of Qom, in Iran - where
Ayatollah Khomeini started his campaign to depose the
Shah - to the birthplace of Shi'ism in Najaf, Iraq. This
is one of the key questions in the complex Iran-Iraq
equation: how Iraqi Shi'ism threatens Iranian Shi'ism.
The religious flowering in Iraq is already undeniable -
but there are many indications it may not follow the
Iranian political path. The consequences for Iran may be
devastating, because the legitimacy of the theocracy of
the mullahs (or "mullarchy") is increasingly defied not
only by reformist intellectuals and students but even by
some religious clerics and former 1979 revolutionaries.
Amir Mohebian, a pro-mullarchy intellectual,
pro-Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, and journalist at
Resalat, an Iranian daily aligned to the interests of
right wing bazaaris (traders and merchants), says
that "Iran would be happy that an Islamic republic is
given birth in Iraq, but it is not willing to impose it.
If Iraqis decide to opt for a non-religious political
system, this is no problem for us." Compare this to
reformist Hamid Jalaeipur, professor of political
science at the University of Tehran: "All Iraqi Shi'ites
don't want such a system. The role of secular Shi'ites
as well as Iraqi clerics - opposed to a political role
of the clergy - will have to be examined closely,
because it is very probable that we will soon see the
emergence in Baghdad of a secular regime."
In
Najaf, SAIRI cadres are actually hoping that the Iranian
Islamic Republic will not influence Iraq; they'd rather
see the new Iraqi experiment being able to democratize
Iran. Meanwhile in Qom, the Grand Ayatollah Saanei, who
talked to Asia Times Online last year, has told French
daily Le Monde that "it is out of the question to
transfer our system to Iraq. The United States should
not interfere politically in Iraq, and this also applies
to ourselves." Saanei remarked that all great "sources
of imitation" - or marja'a, the highest echelon
of the Shi'ite clergy - who have lived in Qom, all of
them came from Najaf. For him, Najaf and Qom complement
each other.
Will Iran and Iraq complement each
other? The answer may hinge on the impact of the more
than 3,000 Iraqi Shi'ite religious leaders who came back
home from exile in Iran. If a separation between
religion and politics successfully takes place in Iraq,
the road is paved for a secular Shi'ite-dominated Iraqi
regime being able to give the Iranian theocracy a
democracy lesson. If the Americans allow it, of course.
(Copyright 2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All
rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
