The Hashemite solution for Iraq.

[al-Hasani]

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.

 

[Falcon29]

the downward slope began when they overthrew the monarchy, they let power hungry politicians have control of the country instead of a constitutional monarchy where are all were treated fairly. In the context of the cold war and socialism gaining popularity among young Arabs (the work of the UAR), it's easy to see how someone like Saddam could seize power. Btw, Iraq's most stable period was under the reign of Faisal II , I can link the source if you want.
@al-Hasani nothing really. As I said, I don't think it's a viable option anymore for quite a few reasons. I just thought it was interesting.

As if monarchy is any better.

 

[Ahmed Jo]

I am not propagandizing anything personally. My opinion on this matter is pretty straightforward. I emphasized that people should chose 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. Know as majlis. Might have heard about it:

Majlis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By that virtue often also more touch with the local society directly.

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.

It would likely be even more democratic than Jordan is now, it would be more like how Jordan was in the 1950s. Starting in the late 60s, Arab betrayal was on the rise and with Iraq fallen to the socialists, the king increasingly needed to exercise his power in the interest of maintaining the nation's sovereignty. Since then, we've had a constitutional monarchy but it's not fully democratic (perhaps that's a good thing). Although, a reform process is underway.

 

[al-Hasani]

It would likely be even more democratic than Jordan is now, it would be more like how Jordan was in the 1950s. Starting in the late 60s, Arab betrayal was on the rise and with Iraq fallen to the socialists, the king increasingly needed to exercise his power in the interest of maintaining the nation's sovereignty. Since then, we've had a constitutional monarchy but it's not fully democratic (perhaps that's a good thing). Although, a reform process is underway.

It's difficult to make such predictions but it is interesting to read about the ground realities in for instance the Kingdom of Hijaz in the 1910's and 1920's or the predecessor state (Sharifate) and then compare it with what followed next. In some ways the societies regressed in the ME while they should have progressed after large parts of the initial work or way was done or at least shown.

Socialists really screwed up not only parts of the Arab world but the ME as a whole let alone the world. Russia being a prime example aside from periods in Chinese history and obviously Vietnam, North Korea etc.

Anyway Hashemites of today (leaders especially) are influenced greatly by the events of the world, their education (mostly completed at leading universities NOT in the ME) and the need for reforms. Yet when they get back to the ground realities in their countries and region (ME) they realize that many of the plans simply cannot be implemented for various of reasons.

It's like for instance telling Iraqis not to be sectarian because in Denmark people do not care about what religion you have in 95% of the cases. It will obviously not work like this. Why? Because it is a whole different world.

Anyway all I know is that the Hashemites in Jordan are highly respected and have been so since Jordan became a sovereign country which is the most important thing.

Iraq is pretty complex to discuss anyway and our predictions might be wrong or right.

 

[Ahmed Jo]

It's difficult to make such predictions but it is interesting to read about the ground realities in for instance the Kingdom of Hijaz in the 1910's and 1920's or the predecessor state (Sharifate) and then compare it with what followed next. In some ways the societies regressed in the ME while they should have progressed after large parts of the initial work or way was done or at least shown.

Socialists really screwed up not only parts of the Arab world but the ME as a whole let alone the world. Russia being a prime example aside from periods in Chinese history and obviously Vietnam, North Korea etc.

Anyway Hashemites of today (leaders especially) are influenced greatly by the events of the world, their education (mostly completed at leading universities NOT in the ME) and the need for reforms. Yet when they get back to the ground realities in their countries and region (ME) they realize that many of the plans simply cannot be implemented for various of reasons.

It's like for instance telling Iraqis not to be sectarian because in Denmark people do not care about what religion you have in 95% of the cases. It will obviously not work like this. Why? Because it is a whole different world.

Anyway all I know is that the Hashemites in Jordan are highly respected and have been so since Jordan became a sovereign country which is the most important thing.

Iraq is pretty complex to discuss anyway and our predictions might be wrong or right.

From what I understand, the Middle East as a whole started to culturally regress around the 1980s. A sort of fundamentalist revolution took place. Yes, the Hashemites are respected by many in Jordan. It was actually the respect and loyalty of the Jordanian Bedouin tribes that kept the kingdom intact during the seventies and kept the king safe throughout the various attempts on his life. Anyway, moderate and comprehensive reform is key for a better middle east, in my opinion.

 

[al-Hasani]

From what I understand, the Middle East as a whole started to culturally regress around the 1980s. A sort of fundamentalist revolution took place. Yes, the Hashemites are respected by many in Jordan. It was actually the respect and loyalty of the Jordanian Bedouin tribes that kept the kingdom intact during the seventies and kept the king safe throughout the various attempts on his life. Anyway, moderate and comprehensive reform is key for a better middle east, in my opinion.

I think that we need to look much further back. If you look at the pre-Islamic history of our people (Arabs, Semites) and region (Arab world/ME) then we for millenniums were the center of the world home to the greatest civilizations on this planet. Equally the Islamic world under Arab rule and in Arab lands was the most developed that it has ever been.

Most Arab historians and Muslim historians too btw. look at the downfall starting from the Mongol Siege of Baghdad in 1258. But actually if started Mu'tazila Islamic school of theology lost importance as it was very much known for reason and rational thought.

Mu'tazila - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moroever, which our Turkish friends might not like to here, then the Ottoman Empire did very little on the front of academic, technological, theological, economical progress of the territories that were under their influence compared to before. This had very negative consequences in hindsight. In many ways we can also blame ourselves for this and the disunity as every power succumbs for various reasons.

Now the Arab Revolt did a lot of good and was very promising but then the Brits and French (the two main world powers back then (early 20th century) when USA was still somewhat irrelevant. They knew about the immense historical, religious, strategic and later resource rich importance of the Arab world and took advantage by that by colonizing large parts of our world. So they basically prevented the social, political etc. changes that would have occurred naturally without any outside interference. Later a wide range of conflicts emerged and here we are today. Some of our countries are doing a lot of good and moving forward on all fronts at a fast speed while others have REGRESSED. So it's pretty complicated.

What is needed are political and social reforms yet they will work in some countries that are ready and in others they will not and instead just create a counter revolution and then we are back to square 1.

It all depends on the visions. The visions of GCC is something that most people can identity with and most people realize that those visions are needed hence the plans for those visions are supported by most people. The Arab countries in crisis need new visions that can create unity and help change the tide.

That's it for tonight!

 

[islamrules]

Jordan n the GCC

 

[anHuman]

That's not a bad idea at all, look at the Arab world now, every Arab monarch country is stable and flourishing while every Arab republic country is unstable and suffering from economic and political problems.

Compare the Arab republic countries today with the monarch rule in the past, Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, all were good, happy and stable countries under monarchs till Jamal Abdulnassar came and messed it all up with his socialist ideology, thankfully the GCC managed to stay away from all that.

that because , Republic system is against Arabs tribal culture and has conflict with Arab Culture , in fact the only way for arab to accept Republic system is to abondan their tribal culture and for it ( and ofcures these mean they have to become something else , anything except being an Arab ) , but Monarchy System is ok with Arabs tribal culture ....

 

[al-Hasani]

that because , Republic system is against Arabs tribal culture and has conflict with Arab Culture , in fact the only way for arab to accept Republic system is to abondan their tribal culture and for it ( and ofcures these mean they have to become something else , anything except being an Arab ) , but Monarchy System is ok with Arabs tribal culture ....

Says a Farsi whose country has never been a real republic in its history. Hilarious. Arabs as a people have had much more contact with republican values than Iran has even been close to historically. In fact the MAJORITY of Arab countries are republics.

What the hell do you even mean by tribalism? Do you think that this is Congo or Afghanistan? Tribes consists of clans who again consists of families that have ancestral ties. They are basically extended families of sorts. Obviously they will have an influence but in almost all Arab countries tribalism is nothing more than keeping some ancient traditions alive.

Most people's family belong to an Arab clan and that clan again belongs to a major Arab tribe and often that major tribe can be traced to historical figures or Prophets such as Prophet Ibrahim (as) and go many thousands years back or older major Arab tribes. Most people don't see it as anytthing more than a curiosity or genealogy. Having said that then family values and ultimately your background has a big influence in the Arab world which is a very good thing.

Just like you have nobles, aristocracy and people who are interested in their family history etc. everywhere in this world.

Besides more or less every ME country is not democratic and its rulers are all the same whether they claim to call themselves Grand Ayatollah Mullah's or Supreme Leaders as in your country (basically monarchs dressed in Mullah clothing) so-called democratically elected absolute dictators like your lovely Al-Asshead or whether they are the Sultan of Oman - the only remaining Sultanate in the world and a family that has ruled Oman for over 300 years.

You Farsis should really stick to Tajikistan or Afghanistan. I mean it.