Between Iraq And Somalia

Salameh Nematt      Al-Hayat      2003/08/14

The fact that more than 150 newspapers have started being published in Iraq in the past three months following the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime and the ensuing U.S. occupation is a matter well worth examining. By being able to practice their right to free expression despite the occupation, in a matter of weeks and after decades of oppression, proves that the Iraqi people no longer fear the return of the former regime or the retributions of the current occupation. It is also a proof that people, no matter how long they are oppressed, do not forget the meaning of freedom or the ways to practice it, nor the ways of self-expression; they are in no need of international custody or an international project adopted by the UN or the World Bank to help them "learn" democracy. What these people need is to get rid of fear, considered to be man's strongest instinct, and which the former President succeeded in spreading among his people over three decades, so that the only words spoken were in praise of him.

Other than this positive news, namely that the Iraqis aren't waiting for an authorization to publish newspapers, another incident is worth noting: the Somali Parliament decided to dismiss the Prime Minister on the grounds that he failed to fulfill his official duties!

What is striking is that the world didn't know that this tribal country, torn by civil war, has an elected parliament, and not only that, but also does it have the authority to overthrow the government! How did that ever happen? Did the civil wars lead to a Somali democracy, just as the U.S. occupation has been leading to the first signs of an Iraqi democracy?

It is sad and unfortunate that there are no signs of a true democratic change in the Arab region, except for what we are seeing in occupied and destroyed Iraq. Let us not forget the Palestinians who are also under occupation, by the Israelis, enjoy a large margin of freedom as well (three television channels in Khalil alone), unlike the situation in "progressive" states.

The results of the last legislative elections in both Jordan and Kuwait came as a disappointment, even though it is generally better to hold elections than dissolve the parliament and postpone elections twice, as Jordan did. Despite the separation of powers between the Crown Prince and the Prime Minister in Kuwait, which is a positive step, the state interference in both countries as far as the drafting of the electoral law has ensured the reinforcement of the tribal system as a means to contain the opposition at the expense of democracy, plurality and proportional representation. Despite all that, elections - any elections - are welcome, for their presence is always better than their absence, even though elections are one thing and democracy is another. There is no pleasant occupation or hated one, all occupations are hated. But the worst thing is to have "nationalist" governments that have not yet reached the level of the occupation forces in bearing an opposition or even a different opinion.