Restoring Constitutional Monarchy In Iraq

Najdat Fathi Safwat     Al-Hayat     2003/06/17

Prior to World War I, Iraq was divided into three Ottoman states governed by rulers appointed by the Ottoman Empire. When that empire disintegrated in the war, Iraq became a united political and administrative entity. And since then, it has gone through various forms of rules, starting with a direct British rule. And when Britain found that the Iraqi people hated foreigners and that it would not be able to rule the country directly, Sir Percy Cox appointed a government headed by Abdulrahman Al Naqib, from Baghdad. The Hashemite rule followed as Feisal I was crowned king, and Iraq was placed by the League of Nations under British mandate. In 1930, the British-Iraqi treaty was concluded according to which Britain recognized Iraq as an independent state. In 1932, Iraq became the first Arab country to join the League of Nations.

Thanks to his cautious policies, King Feisal I was able to make out of Iraq's three states, which were backward and underdeveloped, one consolidated country, and out of the three main ethnic groups forming Iraq, one coherent social structure. Iraqis reached a stage were they despised any attempt to differentiate among them on religious, sectarian or ethnic grounds. Iraq thus began its march toward modernization. A modern army was formed, and schools and universities were established throughout the country. Moreover, many Iraqis were sent to study abroad as the economy prospered thanks to the oil revenues.

I read in Al-Hayat on June 3rd an article by Mr. Hussein Hindawi, in which he denounced any attempt to reestablish the monarchy in Iraq. But it seems that the author had little knowledge of Iraq’s history and the experience it witnessed after the monarchy was ousted, which destroyed its structure and oppressed its people.

The beginning of that regrettable period opened with the massacre of Al Rehab palace, which was a shameful act that that was widely condemned within and without Iraq. The perpetrators of the military coup called it a "revolution," but this description was hardly representative of their crime. What happened in Iraq was a conspiracy that was perpetrated by a number of army officers which they carried out while the people were asleep. And while the majority of the people welcomed the "revolution" in the beginning, they were soon disillusioned with the coup.

The coup, which happened on July 14, 1958, came as the result of certain parties in the opposition who were calling for democracy, as well as to the influence of some foreign radio stations who envied Iraq for the progress it had achieved. The perpetrators were also influenced by the coup that had taken place in Egypt in 1952. They too called themselves the "free officers," emulating the Egyptian officers who revolted against King Farouk. But there is no comparison between the two. Farouk was corrupt and incompetent while King Feisal and Crown Prince Abulilah were careful to maintain the good reputation of their families. Still, the brutality with which the coup was carried out in Iraq was totally different from the peaceful way in which King Farouk was ousted. After that, Iraq came under a republican regime without a president, and a democracy only by name while the actual rule was a military dictatorship.

It is worth noting that those who had been calling for democracy under the monarchy cooperated fully with the military dictatorship that ensued without caring much about the principles they had defended so vigorously in the past.

In the article by Hindawi, he claims that the image of King Feisal II was no comparison to the national leader Abdulkarim Qasim who led the military coup against the Hashemite monarchy. But such talk only points to the lack of knowledge by the writer of the real character of Qassim. It was during his rule that Iraq witnessed divisions and unprecedented oppression and brutal practices. And while Qassim was a patriot and honest man, he was temperamental and of limited intellect lacking political experience. He would support the communists at one time only to turn against them later. He called for an Arab and Kurdish union, and invite Mustapha Barzani from his self imposed exile in Russia, only to fight him later.

Qasim was killed by his former colleagues. He was succeeded by Abdulsalam Aref who was renowned for taking individual decisions and nationalizing commercial enterprises. And when Aref died in a dubious air crash, he was succeeded by his weak brother, Abdulrahman Aref, who lacked any knowledge of state affairs. The country thus endured a weak regime that paved the way for the Baathists to achieve power, thus starting a 30-year reign of terror which rivaled that of Stalin.

During the monarchy, Iraq had one of the most honest and efficient governmental bureaucracy in the Arab world. It also enjoyed a strong and prosperous economy. No one, not even the head of state, could spend public funds without proper authority. (Compare that with the hundreds of millions of dollars that were discovered in the house of the president's son after the ouster of the regime of Saddam Hussein). There was also a construction council that was allocated 70 percent of the oil revenues which promised to provide the country with a prosperous future. Also, during the monarchy, Iraq had an international and Arab standing, and the Iraqi people enjoyed freedom of expression and a press that had wide freedoms. The rights of the people were respected, and their lives were secured.

With the republic, ministers of all political convictions achieved power, but the situation quickly deteriorated. The people were disillusioned and conspiracies began to be formed in preparation for more military coups. The people welcomed each coup believing that it will bring their salvation, only to be disappointed and to yearn for the monarchy. The economic situation deteriorated even further due to random policies. The state of the army also worsened as it became deeply involved in politics. The judiciary lost its independence and the citizen his freedom. Iraqis no longer could move about their country. Almost the entire population became banned from travel outside the country. Doctors, army officers, engineers, former ministers all were not allowed to travel even for urgent medical treatment, thus turning Iraq into a big prison.

And while Iraq, which is rich in resources, should be living in prosperity, under the republican regime, it reached a destitute state. Iraqis, who under the monarchy were respected abroad, became under the republican regime humiliated as few countries would grant them visas.

Events in Iraq following the ouster of the monarchy have demonstrated that the constitutional monarchy was the best alternative and that the choice of the Hashemite king was the wise decision to make. Iraq differs from Arab countries in terms of the make up of the population. It is composed of diverse ethnic and religious groups. King Feisal I was recognized by all as the guarantor of their rights. Like Belgium, Holland, Britain and other constitutional monarchies that enjoy stability and economic prosperity, Iraq can enjoy the same under the monarchy.

The writer does not belong to any political group and has no interest in promoting the restoration of the monarchy in Iraq. However, he regards that the appointment of Sherif Hassan Bin Ali as king of Iraq is the ideal solution to Iraq's problems. As for those who claim that the Sherif has been out of Iraq for 45 years, and thus has no knowledge of its concerns, the answer is that he is an Iraqi in all his senses. Moreover, King Feisal I arrived at Iraq at the age of 40, without having been to the country before, but his selection to be king proved to be most prudent.

Mr. Hindawi pointed in his article that Mrs. Gertrude Bell imposed Feisal I as King over Iraq against the will of the population. But first of all, Bell was not married. She was known as "Miss Bell." She never imposed Feisal as a king. This issue was recently addressed by Al Wasat, which described how King Feisal became ruler over Iraq.

The author must examine Iraq's recent history before addressing such matters. They should investigate how Iraq degenerated into a state of total chaos under the republican regime.

Mr. Safwat is an Iraqi writer residing in London.