Blondel's Prophecy and Iraq

Jean Blondel went into details in Political Parties – The Decline of Parties in Europe – about the perils of patronage in particracies. The exchange of favours and appointments in governmental bodies owing to party calculations and favour exchanges has proven ineffective and non-transparent, whether in majoritarian systems or those of a consensual nature. The mistakes committed by parties in continental Europe throughout the past century have been taken account of, with the hope that as party life develops and new organisational structures emerge, citizens can be spared the inefficiency of their elected governments.

What is being exported into the new member countries of the democratic club seems to miss out on these lessons. Theory trumps practicality and experience in the process of introducing democratic systems of governance in these countries. Iraq stands testimony to this very observation.

Iraq was ruled for very long years by an Arab-nationalist party that employed European-inspired rhetoric of socialism and nationalism. Parties of other ideological families also played a role in the political landscape – such as the Communist party, which have also been an offshoot of European parties established in the 1950s, or at least an offshoot of their intellectual school. When the USA liberated Iraq from years long of dictatorship in 2003, a new formula of party collaboration and political organisation was introduced.

Iraq was viewed as a nation of cleavages, and consequently, the system was organised in a similar fashion. It was agreed that the presidency was to be headed by a Kurdish leader, the Parliament by a Sunni leader, and the government by a Shiite leader. Parties were organised along the same cleavage lines, and so were the votes of the electorate. Most importantly, parties of the same ideological family – that of religious or ethnic affiliation – started to exchange favours under a patronage-supportive system.

Elections in Iraq in May 2018 envisaged drama. The prophecy was fulfilled. It took party factions and elected members over 4 months to select a prime minister. Lengthier time is expected when it comes to forming the government. The Blondel–feared party patronage prophecy took place. Parties started forming coalitions across cleavage-lines in hope of forming a majority and consequently form a government. Moqtada al-Sadr and Haider al-Abadi created an alliance that includes the blocs of Vice President Ayad Allawi and Shi’ite Muslim cleric Ammar al-Hakim, as well as several Sunni Muslim lawmakers and ones representing Turkmen, Yazidi, Mandaean and Christian minorities. A rival grouping led by militia commander Hadi al-Ameri and former Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki formed another alliance. Bickering commenced, and so did implied favours and compromises on the hot files (Iran, Kurds, US relations to name a few).

In a surprising turn of events, Iraq’s new president tasked veteran Shiite politician Adel Abdul-Mahdi with forming a new government. Neutrality and independence will not facilitate the setting up of a government. Months after the country elected its new parliament the country is as divided and ungovernable as ever – and it is all attributed to a system that naively believed in consensual politics in an ethnically and religiously divided nation. The exchange of favours and the agreement of parties on their share of the pie will only entrench further factionalism and favouritism based on party affiliation, AKA in Iraq "religious affiliation". The new premier however astonished everyone by announcing that the public can apply for a ministerial post by sending an electronic application. He reportedly declined nominations by parties that were masked by independent slogans. Is that the end of patronage?

Whether this is a political stunt or an actual change in the modus operandi of Iraq politics remains to be seen. Blondel's prophecies might not find ground in the Iraqi government, or so one hopes.

Yal NATO

The Trump administration is pursuing a regional security alliance comprised of Egypt, Jordan, and six Gulf Arab states, dubbed as the “Arab NATO.” The organisation will presumably support US efforts in containing and rolling back Iranian influence in the Middle East. To use US jargon: to safeguard against Iranian aggression, terrorism, extremism, totalitarianism and any other isms that come to mind. Tired and broke after a series of military interventions in this sad, troubled region, the Trump administration hopes that the Arab NATO would step in and do the work themselves.  

The White House wants to see deeper cooperation between the countries on missile defence, military training, counter-terrorism and other issues such as strengthening regional economic and diplomatic ties. However, the main target is to curb Shiite Iran, by these Sunni partners. The proposal screams failure on many levels, but two dimensions must be explored in this respect:  technical glitches, and moral vacuum.

Clustering these countries in an alliance on the premises of ideological harmony and common interests (at least momentarily) does not promise a solid foundation for a military cross-national alliance. The Gulf States have been on non-speaking terms with Qatar for over a year now. Jordan was boycotted by all Gulf States during the first Gulf War. Egypt outspokenly threatened to topple the regime in Jordan back in the early 1960s. Saudi Arabia and Egypt repeatedly refused to allow either country to lead their army under a military alliance. Political, ideological, historical, economic, and social divides cannot be ignored in the euphoria of ‘Sunni brethren union to counter a Shiite menace’. Even if these Arab States alluded to agreeing to the establishment of their own NATO version, years of experience taught them that this is but a euphemism to: the USA will come to our rescue if military adventures go awry. Another technical issue that should be considered is the point behind the alliance. What does ‘counter Iranian influence’ mean? Does it mean cooperating with the US in damaging Iran's economy, thus also jeopardising the economy of neighbouring countries, primarily Iraq? Does it mean disenfranchising the Shiite community, thus deepening a schism that would likely end in a civil war in multiple countries? Would that mean launching a war against a nuclear Iran? How are these states supposed to curb Tehran's powers? Should the Arab NATO have a vague, open-for-interpretation charter that outlines we-hate-Iran articles? It is very difficult to imagine the technicality of this military cooperation and its specific objectives, let alone legitimacy. 

Now, the moral dimension. The Arab world will not turn into Utopia once the Persian threat is curbed and dwarfed. All of these countries are ruled by autocratic regimes, some of which with totalitarian tendencies, whose youth are disaffected and marginalised. Poverty, unemployment, lack of freedoms, bigotry and many more issues run deep in these countries. Solving them will bring peace and stability to the Middle East. A club of military ambitions will not. Yemen stands testimony to the atrocities that are committed against civilians in the name of protecting Arabs from Iranian intervention. How can the Trump administration morally allow unleashing such erratic behaviour, including on its staunchest Iranian enemy?

The administration’s hope is that the effort might be discussed at a summit provisionally scheduled for Washington on 12-13 October. Let us all hope that someone wakes Trump up from his ethical coma.

Kleptocracy vs Kakistocracy

The US administration has never shied away from depicting the Iranian regime in the worst and most diabolic forms of governments. Slurs such as the axis of evil, a terrorist-harbouring state, and a deranged theocracy are some of the synonyms of the Ayatollah regime in Iran. Most recently, the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered a speech in which he accused the Iranian regime of being a corrupt Kleptocracy, insinuating that the overthrow of such a corrupt system was a common dream of Americans and Iranian friends.

Not to be outdone,  Donald Trump issued a dramatic tweet in all caps and with the signature exclamation remark at the end: "NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!"

These intelligent words came after Iran's foreign minister’s meeting with Iranian diplomats, during which he elegantly indicated that America should know that "peace with Iran is the mother of all peace, and war with Iran is the mother of all wars". The comment was a sublime thereat to Washington, warning it against any attempt overthrow the Iranian regime.

Steamy retorts and bellicose rhetoric are not new in the US-Iranian relations. However, it is interesting to see how the pot is calling the kettle black.

Yes, Iran is an autocratic regime. And yes, it is most likely a Kleptocracy. But isn’t the Trump administration the purest form of a Kakistocracy? Both nations are run by inept, dangerous, and violent governments. Both countries pose a dangerous and direct threat to the well-being of their neighbours, and both administrations are run on the basis of vendetta, tantrums, and deep-seated and obsessive love/hate relationships with certain ideologies. Nonetheless, one of them is run by the corrupt, and the other by the unqualified. It is pretty clear which of the two is more dangerous.

The public is most likely tired of hearing such flagrant and intense rhetoric. The fact that Iran is run by a corrupt gang will not justify yet another war that no country has seen before (to use Trump’s insensitive, arrogant, and simply stupid words). By the same token, one can expect and justify international calls for an end to the Trump administration on the basis of absolute ineptness. Unqualified and corrupt figures should be banned from office, but there they are, and that is that. Employing soul-touching rhetoric to justify the overthrow of a government and a makeover of an entire regime is what one can expect from - well - a Kakistocracy.

Perhaps it would be better to go back to the Bush-era terminology, which – although equally intelligent – justified intervention in the Middle East. Fomenting terror, harbouring evilness, anti-Semitism and the like had a stronger impact on the public. Are the Americans ready to finance another war in the name of ridding Iranians from corrupt leaders? Not really.

One quote from a Trump visit to Michigan in April wraps this article nicely: 'Our laws are so corrupt and stupid'. Perhaps the administration should start from there.

Oh but Iran is not going anywhere

     Donald Trump’s agenda was - surprisingly – clear when he met with Vladimir Putin during the July 16 summit in Helsinki. Trump’s wish-list included maintaining the gains made against the Islamic State, constraining Iranian influence in Syria, and gradually pulling out all military presence from the country. It does not really matter who stays in power, as long as the Islamic State in the eastern part of the country has been defeated, and Iran’s influence in Damascus is reined by Russia. It is a question of time before Assad gains control over the entire country – eastern side in particular – and the Syrian Democratic Forces will no longer be recognised as the authority on the ground, including by its US patron. What is left for the US to save face is to appear to have minimised Iran's role in Syria.

The Trump administration clearly wants to kick Iran out of Syria. Russia is neither crazy about Iranian growing influence and power in Syria.  A compromise can be reached between the two world powers…but what about Syria and Iran? Would they agree to such a deal? And would Russia have a change of heart and keep a winning (yet problematic) card at hand?

The Trump administration rightly seeks to limit Iranian influence in Syria, but it would do well to recognise that neither the United States nor Russia can force a complete Iranian withdrawal. At the summit, both leaders agreed that they would ‘do certain things with Syria’ that would contribute to ensuring the safety of Israel. It is quite clear what these ‘things’ are:  containing Iran’s influence in Syria (in exchange for downsizing US military presence).

Interestingly, the issue is no longer the Assad regime, the role of rebels, or the safety and well-being of Syria. With Russia still supporting the Assad regime, the US backing rebels in the east, and Syrians still under fire and siege, everyone somehow agreed that the safety of Israel and curbing Iran’s influence in the region would suffice as goals.

The tragedy is that it does not really matter at all whether such an agreement holds. At the end of the day, Iran’s multiple proxies in the entire Middle East and its ability to shape policies are not limited to its current role in the Assad regime. More importantly, there is no guarantee that Russia would respect its side or the agreement, or that Damascus and Tehran would follow through. In the past, Iran and the regime have brushed aside Russian efforts to reshape the political and diplomatic landscape in Syria—most notably in dismissing Russian’s call for all foreign forces to leave the country. Iran and Syria have cooperated since the 1980s amidst the Iran-Iraq war, and their ‘friendship’ has only grown stronger, forged by common goals, ideologies, geopolitical perspectives, and economic interests. 

To assume that Iran would pack and leave because Russia told it so would be both innocent, and slightly stupid. Now that Assad has reasserted control over the country, made the US fight a successful war against ISIS for him, and strengthened the country's alliance with Iran and Russia, it would be impossible to consider relinquishing such leverage in the name of peace. The Trump administration might be tricked into believing the Russian rhetoric...but oh does Israel really know better.

Shawerma Threats

An article posted in Al Monitor describes the growing tensions between Israel and Turkey over the latter’s activities in Jerusalem Haram Al-Sharif/Temple Mount. Whether it is the rising funds directed to non-profit associations, primarily the Turkish Cooperation and Development Agency, the soaring number of tourists flocking into Jerusalem, or the opening of a series of Turkish shawarma places, Tel Aviv is concerned with Istanbul’s hidden agendas. One concern however seems to stick out - again as reported on the aforementioned article:

´The Israelis are convinced that Erdogan is trying to return Ottoman grandeur to the Temple Mount to intensify tension between Jews and Muslims in the holy places and become the top Islamic figure to protect the mosques and Al-Aqsa. “We won’t let this happen, no way,” an Israeli security source said on condition of anonymity’.

Now, what does this anonymous Israeli security official mean with return Ottoman grandeur to the Temple Mount? Does that mean that the official believe that reminiscing about the past and attempting to revive it are future - actually dangerous – acts that require immediate attention and development of counter measures? Is the Ottoman renaissance dream forbidden for its validity or rather its peril?  

It is quite ironic for an Israeli official to use the history card…after all that is all what Zionism is based on: history. No one is refuting or questioning the rights of Jews in living in peaceful coexistence in Palestine, noting that tracing back Jewish history in Palestine to thousands of years in the past has been a perfectly acceptable excuse for reviving the Israeli Sate. The question that begs itself would therefore be: why would the Ottomans be any different?? Can't one say that presence in the region for five centuries has led to planting roots in the holy land...roots that cannot be denied by history or ethnicity. Furthermore, the Ottoman Empire is much more recent in history, has stretched for five centuries across vast areas in the region, and has introduced political system that reflected – and somehow respected- cultural, ethnic, and religious diversity in the lands it ruled. In other words, the rhetoric employed by Israeli and Jews across the world that Israel is their homeland on the basis of history and religious texts should be viewed in the same lens as the argument of Turkey and Turks across the world that it is only natural for their country to expand its power and presence into foreign lands on the premises of historic rights and religious scripture.

Both arguments are invalid in both cases - but the lesser of two evils is clear to many. Or is it?

A Story of an Olive Tree

     The strong, brown and henna bearing hands dug me a hole to serve as a loving womb. I sat there small yet secure, waiting for the rain – and sometimes the tears – to feed me life. As a sprout I dug myself up to find myself between my rising siblings who were hugging the confident and fair sun. I was showered with love and hate, with peace and war, and with screams and music. When the hands that planted me embraced my trunk, I felt at home...I felt I belonged. However the thunder of gunfire and angry boots crushed the serenity, and shook my existence. I tried to stand but the forces were stronger…and I succumbed watching my lifeless body bidding this land farewell. When I finally fell over the land upon which I once stood tall, I gazed into this beautiful, unjust world. Only then did I find the unborn, fragile seeds hiding in the blood-soaked soil, waiting for death before seeing life.  It was then that I realised that my sacrifice was not in vain, and that I will live on in this holy land through the seeds that my lifeless body is protecting. And that through these seeds I was, still am, and will be.  

El retorico, el esperado, y la auto glorificación

   

    Un artículo publicado en El País el 19 de junio hace un resumen sobre la entrevista de Pedro Sánchez con TVE, emitida desde el Palacio de La Moncloa. Siendo que El País socialista decidió arrojar luz sobre estas 10 frases principales, uno debe suponer que conllevan claves para la visión de Sánchez sobre que debe gobernar España en lo próximos años, y la manera de tratar los  temas prioritarios en la agenda nacional.

Pues no.

Fijándose en estas 10 frases claves, se puede deducir que todos lo que sale de las boca del presidente del gobierno nuevo es algo retorico, dolorosamente esperado, o un intento de auto justificación o elogio. De hecho, las frases son totalmente superfluas y vacías.

Éstas son las frases.

1. Aspiro a agotar la legislatura y que las elecciones sean en 2020.

Esperado. El objetivo de Sánchez fue y sigue siendo ser jefe de gobierno. Nadie pensaba que los socialistas llaman a celebrar nuevas elecciones y arriesgar una pérdida probable.

2. Veremos la fecha y el momento [de la retirada de los restos de Franco del Valle de los Caídos]. España no se puede permitir como democracia consolidada símbolos que separen españoles. No es abrir heridas, es cerrarlas.

Esta es la posición de los socialistas desde décadas. No es nada nuevo ni sorprendente. La presencia de alguna intención de hacer algo sobre los restos puede ser mostrada con la especificación de alguna fecha/plan/proceso/procedimiento, incluso si solo es algo preliminar.

3. Se pueden guardar las fronteras pero sin lesionar a las personas. No vamos a abrir las fronteras, que es inviable, sino a gestionar bien los flujos migratorios.

¿Qué otra cosa puede decir? ¿Abrimos las fronteras para potenciales terroristas? ¿Ahogamos los niños en los barcos para protegernos? Cualquiera pueda llegar a la conclusión y observación del presidente: buena gestión y control de las fronteras….una frase perfecta para que se quede ambiguo el destino de los inmigrantes que llegan a España, o el destino de España que reciba inmigrantes.

4. Es razonable que, cuando termine el periodo de instrucción, cuando el juez lo considere, instituciones penitenciarias pueda trasladar a los [líderes independentistas] presos a Cataluña.

Otra vez, frase esperada y vacía de cualquiera visón concreta.

5. Si hubiera sabido la sanción de Màxim Huerta probablemente no lo hubiera nombrado ministro. Pero eso ya es pasado.

Perfecta mezcla de auto justificación y elogio….perdonadme por no hacer mi labor de investigar bien el perfil de mis ministros, pero dame palmaditas en la espalda por actuar en una manera responsable.

6. Nunca voy a decir que el PP es un partido corrupto. Muchos de ellos se avergozaban de los casos de corrupción de su partido. Y el PP es central en el sistema político español. Espero que renueven el liderazgo y al nuevo líder del PP va a contar con mi lealtad, y espero contar con la suya.

La dualidad en el bipartidismo español no le permite a un líder de un partido clasificado segundo en las elecciones y uno que depende a las alianzas basadas en compromisos muy flexibles a atacar un partido injustamente expulsado.

7. Me siento orgulloso de que España sea el país de la OCDE con más representación de mujeres en el Consejo de Ministros.

Bravo Sánchez.

8. El copago farmacéutico... Vamos a ver si hay suficientes recursos para sacar adelante el fin del copago farmacéutico.

Declarando lo obvio y esperado, mientras se asegura que la vaguedad anubla la interpretación.

9. No hay nadie por encima de la ley [sobre Urdangarín].

Retorico que pronto se convierte en frase hecha. 

10. Este Gobierno se va a arremangar para garantizar el sostenimiento de las pensiones y para que sean los más dignas posibles.

Posición tradicional de los socialistas sobre el tema…nada nuevo ni concreto.

El problema de la entrevista no es que fue una mezcla del obvio, retorico, y auto-glorificación. Cualquier político tiene el pleno derecho de tejer palabras  - vacías o  no -  para conectarse con el público. El problema es la decisión de El País a colgar el artìculo en el encabezado de la página principal. Para un lector crítico, las frases emblemáticas de la entrevista no son más que frases huecas que brindan un amplio espacio para la interpretación flexible y la alteración cuando sea necesario. Esperamos que el estilo editorial no sea el estilo gubernamental del corriente socialista.