The U.K. and Iraq Regimes - Term Paper Example

U.K. and Iraq Introduction The understanding of politics and regimes can be something necessary in solving different problems that are political in nature. This promotes making of politically derived decisions and ideas which make it possible to address the major issues and disparagements faced within nations and societies. With the great role of politics within the society, it is necessary to have first hand information and idea of solving political problems and issues. The world has intensely become politically driven and hence political science because a very important element in understanding the role of politics and political understanding within the society. With proper understanding of political science, it can be easy to gain an understanding on the things taking place in the society and even in the broader world. Without politics and political understandings, it might be very hard to understand some of the roles and performances pertinent in a number of societies today. Almost all societal aspects have an element of politics with it, and hence without political understanding, some of the problems affecting different nations might not be understood. Reflecting on the above points of view, this paper critically examines regimes between U.K. and Iraq form a broad perspective. Our study at the regimes of the United Kingdom and Iraq and the comparison of the two takes us way back to the 1920s when Iraq is placed under the British mandate. This is the time when Britain is competing with its European counterparts to acquire and take change of countries across Africa and the rest of the world in what a show of both supremacy and an urge to be among the powerful colonies of all times. At this time the United Kingdom as a country is a much stable country as compared to Iraq its colony whether it is in term of the structures and the access to resources far beyond their border. Here we talk about minerals across their African colony which elevates them to supremacy (Thakur 48). This sees it as a major policy maker and a key stake holder in the international who is who organizations. At this time Iraq is among the unlucky as it finds itself under the leadership and control of this same self-preserving country we call the United Kingdom. The fortunate thing is that in as much as they are under the British the span of that is only about a little more than a decade (Busch 59). Since the crowning of Hussein Bin Ali, the Sharif of Mecca as Iraq’s first King the British end up vacating that country at around the month of October in the year 1932 leaving Iraq an independent country whose leadership is the only policy maker and ruler of its people. The making of king of Hussein bin Ali brings to some point a similarity between these two countries. This is because the making of a king puts Iraq in the slot of a monarch government same with the United Kingdom, which is also a monarch type of government. Given that Iraq was under the colony of the United Kingdom several years ago, its way of governance or rather its systems of regime resemble that of its master. To the large part, the monarch mode of regime has defined the way the country has gone through various changes up to date. Something what noting is that the United Kingdom monarch is one which is a constitutional monarch (Martinez 59). The form of regime here alludes to a type of governance where the Monarch is the Head of state in line with the constitution and this was as a result of the Glorious revolution in the year 1688 which resulted in the Monarch have to be restricted by law meaning that a monarch’s power was also trimmed down and some of the roles initially under the monarch were now passed onto the ministers (Segell 64). It sees royal neutrality in politics take root around that time and the role left to the Monarch was that of a ceremonial leader. Thus the British come to see a parliament as the Government that would exercise their duty and roles subjected to it under the royal prerogative in place of the monarch and since that reported time the same is and shall continue to be whereby at this point in time the Government is under the office of the Prime Minister and even him has to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen before accepting and taking charge of that public office (Kinzer 58). This reveals something worth noting and this is the fact that the Monarch is bestowed honors and appoints the prime minister while still remaining as the Commander-in-chief of the British Armed forces. From our history we agree that no leadership has a smooth sailing and that each is bound to have challenges. The next statement comes from this observation in that in the year 1958, the monarch of Iraq is overthrown in a military coup which is led by BRIG Abd-al-Karim and col Abdi-al-salam where Iraq is declared a republic and Brig Abd-al-karim becomes prime minister (Hufbauer 78). This is similar to what happened in the United Kingdom in the early century when the monarch at the time disregards the power of the parliament leading to a revolution and his assassination which puts the United Kingdom in a scenario where it has no king. Similar to the situation here the leadership of the country is under the man who initiates the coup or revolution (Busch 64). The situation in the United Kingdom is somehow funny because after a few years the people themselves demand for king and with that the United Kingdom is once again under a monarch form of leadership but now with a limited and checked power which means the parliament and the monarch works hand in hand. In the case of the United Kingdom where the people demand and are given a king, the situation in Iraq is not as smooth. The prime minister who happens to be the one who assumed power through a coup is himself forced to swallow the same pill. A coup led by the Arab socialist Ba’th party (ASBP). This sees Arif taking the office of president. From these events we cannot be wrong to conclude that the sitting regime if it suppresses its people something is bound to happen. The British demanded for a king but in the case of Iraq by a coup the regime was ousted. Quite an observation to make and still have to study cases like this to stand by your statement. Iraq’s situation isn’t yet to change since the spree of coups continues and the people there seems to see these as the only way to keep the leadership in check and the situation only changes when the revolution command council (RCC) and the leader of the Kurdistan (Thakur 67). Democratic Party (KDP) agree to sign a treaty or what some will call a peace agreement in the year 1970 and this is enhanced when Iraq signs a fifteen year treaty of friendship and cooperation (Hufbauer 85). When a regime keeps in check the peace and unity of its citizens a country is bound to now focus on development. This secret is what keeps the United Kingdom at the top of the world economy and at this age even though late, the Iraq regime seems to have got it. This sees Iraq nationalizing the Iraq petroleum company and as a follow up to the 1970 agreement, Iraq grants limited autonomy to the Kurds but the KDP rejects it. Iraq now begins to rise in development and maybe they have their eye focused on the level where Britain is in the development scale (Segell 85). In 1975 Iraq and Iran sign a treaty ending their border disputes. This happens at a meeting of the organization of petroleum. In the United Kingdom the handing over power from one regime to another is smooth and peaceful. This can be attributed to the measures and guidelines set and contained in their constitution. And for the one time Iraq tend to experience this exercise of regime change with no bloodshed or trouble (Martinez 67). The Iraq president Al-Bakr resigns and is succeeded by Vice-president Saddam Hussein in the month of April of 1980. Leadership is the determining factor of the level of prosperity or failure of a country. This would later be a reality to the Iraqi people once Saddam Hussein was in power. In the year 1980, the iran-iraq war is on the verge of starting as Iran shells Iraqi border towns causing the start of the war. It go to the point of Iraq abrogating the 1975 treaty with Iran. This sour relation the Saddam Hussein regime with its people and the rest of the neighboring countries was to continue until the early years of 2000s when the regime was out of power. The united kingdom in itself isn’t a “single patched” country in terms of the initial division of boundaries of countries like France, Germany, Spain etc. but a merger of the Kingdom of Ireland and the Kingdom of Great Britain as from 1707 when initially it comprised of the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Scotland. Since the merger the preferred form of governance has always been that of the constitutional Monarchy with a parliamentary system along with it (Segell 98). During the 18th centuries the British sail across the oceans with the purpose of maintaining and if possible expand and increase their power and wealth. This sees them competing mostly with France for colonies around the world (Kinzer 67). By the late 19th century, under the reign of the Queen Victoria the British is occupying about a quarter of the world’s land and population and this saw a pioneer nation in the industrialization sector hence the birth of the industrial revolution. In 1834, Britain stops slavery in all its colonies and her colonies become more independent and to date the remaining link to its colonies is a linguistic and cultural connection. Not forgetting its major contributions and play in the world governance issues which are enshrined in its treaties and commitment to world organizations. At this point in time, the constitution of the British renews the relationship between the government and the citizen (Macmillan 47). This has been achieved by the government limiting powers that it considers should not be exercised exclusively by the executive but that there should be consultations with interested parties in these fields which include :deployment of troops to warzones areas which usually is across the world and outside the boundaries of its administration as this calls for both the consent of the international community while at the same time putting the wellbeing of its citizen first such that if the move endangers its citizens in any way then it ought to be thought of way ahead of the move; ratifying of international treaties without decision by parliament since each and every member of parliament is a representative of the people who elected him/ her; the government also ensure that it is answerable to parliament and the people. When one takes a look at the regime in the second case study which at this point happens to be Iraq, the similarities and differences are not that hard to point out (Boczek 68). First it is to the knowledge of some if not all of us that prior to 2003; Iraq was a country that was in what can be best described as a one party state. this is not to mean that there is no national assembly or anything like that but the assembly plays a very minor role if any in the state for a number of reasons which include the fact that; the national assembly is not doing its required duty of representing its people because its members are to be elected on a single party which sees a lot of bribery, intimidation and alleged fraud among the members; also, a strong tradition of political repression makes it hard if not impossible for one to express and exercise their right to the freedom of speech to the point of even when one was inside the chambers of parliament (Busch 82). In one point or another Iraq war which begins in 2003 may have tilted or changed the situation somehow if not all of it. It is an invasion initiated by the United States which would later on be a very devastating event since the insurgency and rebels ganged up against the United States and even after the withdrawal of the U.S troops from that country, the rebels have caused many loss of life in the name of going against and opposing the Iraqi government (Martinez 98). Many blame the U.S troops for the upsurge in attacks since the rebels claim that there are no weapons of mass destruction and that it is only a scheme to acquire resources from their country. This brings us to the next point which in the calendar is around early months of 2005 during the time the war was still on, a transitional national assembly was elected to draft a constitution for Iraq and this marked the first time Iraq would have a democracy form of governance but since they knew that it would not be a smooth sailing the assembly confines itself to specific areas including: establishing all of Iraqi territory as a single electoral district thus ensuring all constituencies can have someone to be a representative thus ensuring their interests are represented; also the fact that a large number of assembly members had not lived in Iraq for a significant period of time, resulting in a division between citizens and their representatives (Thakur 87). During this period, representative governance make significant progress in Iraq and this is despite the initial difficulties as the council strengthens its overall capacity during its tenure e.g. in the debates and ensuring that the democratic deficit between its members and civil society is mended and that the relationship began to be better. Iraq’s permanent constitution is approved in 2005 and enforced as from 2006 (Macmillan 74). This results in the departure from Iraq’s previous constitutional tradition due to the ability of the constitution to have a directive on a strong parliamentary system of government thus the council of representatives has strong powers to check the executive but with it there are still unresolved issues such as the constitution does not resolve the type of electoral system that should exist and a number of the constitution’s specific provisions are either being ignored or are systematically violated. Analysis of the Regimes in the U.K and Iraq We can therefore have our comparison and contrast on the subject mentioned above in relation to the two countries. One thing we can point out that is clear is the fact that the evolution of regimes starts from somewhere and the end goal is a better, understanding and accommodative regime that is keen to observe and listen to issues raised by its citizens (Boczek 95). Also the fact that evolution is a must no matter how suppressed the common person(citizen) it shows that people want change and if it is not coming the next thing in as much as it is dangerous and messy always involves revolutions, riots or even assassinations. Thus a leader should be able to read the message from his citizens and if possible engage with them for a smooth and easier time while running his administration. The contrast itself involves many things among them the fact that the U.K has a system of governance which has both the Monarch and the parliamentary system which somehow has stood the test of time by the fact that the scenario where one part does not have exclusive power at the expense of the other hence one can somehow check the other and vice versa. Also worth noting is the fact that one form of governance came about after the citizens of the country took it upon themselves to say enough is enough for the powerful monarch scenario leading to checking of the monarch’s power (U.K) (Hufbauer 98). In the case of Iraq the regime that has democracy as its form of governance came about after intervention from an external partner, here being the U.S.A after the rebels of Iraq had made it impossible for the regime to execute its mandate. Conclusion Several conclusions can be drawn from the above discussion. For instance, it shall be agreed that the two regimes have similarities as well as differences. Such have been clearly defined from the transition of different rulers and leaders in the two countries. In order to understand the comparison from a broad perspective, the discussion has examined the regimes from an historical moment. That is, in the late 1920s during the era when Iraq was under British rule. The analysis has been illustrated through looking at diverse changes, which took place from the time Iraq was gaining its independence. Works Cited Busch, Wilhelm. Ed. Dr. England under the Tudors, King Henry VII, Burt Franklin, New York 2001. Boczek, Boleslaw. International law: a dictionary. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 2005. Print. Davies, Jonathan. Partnership and regimes: the politics of urban regeneration in the UK. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2001. Print. Dodge, Toby. Iraq’s future: the aftermath of regime change. New York: McGraw Hill.2005. Print. Feldman, Shai. After the War in Iraq: defining the new strategic balance. New York: Routledge. 2007 Hufbauer, Gary. Economic sanctions reconsidered. New York: Worth Publishers. 2003. Kinzer, Stephen. Overthrow: America’s century of regime change from Hawaii to Iraq. New York. McGraw-Hill Humanities 2007. Print. Macmillan, John. & Dancchev, Alex. The Iraq War and Democratic Politics. 2005. Print. Martinez, Luis. The violence of petro dollar regimes: Algeria, Iraq, and Libya. . New York: Worth Publishers 2012. Print. Segell, Glen. Disarming Iraq. Prentice Hall. 2004. Print. Thakur, Ramesh. Arms control after Iraq: normative and operational challenge. New York: Basic Books 2007. Print Read More