Posted on 04/05/2003 2:38:38 PM PST by traditionalist
Washington is searching for a successor regime to Saddam Hussein. It is an exercise in political science. Can an even passably democratic government be devised to take the place of a dictator who has stripped his people of decency and trust in others? Iraqis of all sorts are putting themselves forward: dissidents and exiles, former army officers who fled from Saddam in fear of their lives, men of substance certainly. But how representative are they? Why should Iraqis have confidence in self-selected and evidently ambitious leaders whose legitimacy is questionable? This is where the Hashemite family comes in. The last ruler in Baghdad to enjoy legitimacy was a Hashemite, King Faisal II, grandson of the man appointed — imposed, if you will — by the British after World War I to rule Iraq. The legitimacy was admittedly tenuous, but better than none at all. A return to a constitutional monarchy might provide the framework for law and order and national unity.
Communism and Arab socialism almost put paid during the Cold War to monarchy in the Middle East. King Farouk, the gross but witty last king of Egypt, once quipped that soon there would be only five kings left in the world: the King of England and the kings of diamonds, hearts, spades, and clubs. In 1952, revolutionary Egyptian officers, Gamal Abdul Nasser among them, dispatched him on his yacht into exile. Six years later, revolutionary Iraqi officers mercilessly murdered their young king, Faisal II, along with many members of his Hashemite family. With a combination of luck and courage, his first cousin King Hussein of Jordan survived about a dozen conspiracies to kill him in the course of his long reign. The late King Hassan of Morocco was almost King Hussein's equal in surviving assassination attempts. In 1975 King Faisal of Saudi Arabia was shot dead by one of his nephews, and if Osama bin Laden now has his way the entire Saudi royal family is doomed. Another Muslim absolute monarch, Shah Muhammad Reza Pahlavi, was driven off the throne of Iran in 1979 by Islamic fundamentalists.
Whatever ideological credentials they may have boasted, successful revolutionaries in practice kept themselves in power by means of force and the secret police. But even men of that type seem to find it natural to aspire to found a dynasty. In Syria today, Bashar Assad is president only because his father once seized power and eliminated his opponents. Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, Saddam Hussein, and Libya's Muammar Qaddafi are all grooming sons as successors. Lack of legitimacy does not inhibit them.
The passing of power from one ruler to the next in this personal way is a constant source of instability. Anyone with the will and ambition for it has only to decide to seize power for himself, and so upset the state, to be dispossessed in turn by a rival. The spiral of violence is self-perpetuating. Islamic history is an unrelieved tale of usurpation by means of murder and palace coups and revolution. So it was once in the West, of course, where many a ruling family began as usurpers, and only the hereditary principle and the passage of time brought legitimacy. The evolution of the constitutional arrangements of parliaments, parties, and elections gradually introduced the transfer of power by consent, that cardinal stabilizing virtue of democracy.
The principle of hereditary monarchy doesn't attract many defenders in a world of equal opportunity and anti-elitism. But it may have a special role to play when a totalitarian or police state collapses, and the successor state has to form in a void where political legitimacy is an unknown quantity. After the death of Franco, for instance, Spain was open to a right-wing coup and possible civil war. The restoration of constitutional monarchy under King Juan Carlos instead laid the basis of a successful democracy. The return of King Simeon to Bulgaria provided a sense of national identity and continuity, whereas King Michael of Romania failed to take his chance to do the same, and his country is suffering as a result. In Afghanistan, reinstated from exile in spite of his advanced age, Zahir Shah has been a symbol of unity. Many Iranians hope that Reza Pahlavi, the former shah's son, will one day play that role in an Iran liberated from the mullahs. Even post-Soviet Russia has spasms of Romanov nostalgia.
The Hashemite family has a legitimacy which derives from Islam. They claim descent from Hashem, a forebear of the prophet Muhammad. With this ancestry, as they traditionally asserted in the days of the Ottoman Empire, came the right to rule the holy cities of Mecca and Medina in the Hijaz. The sharif, or head of the family, carried the title of Guardian of the Two Shrines. Toward the end of the 19th century, Wilfrid Scawen Blunt, a British Arabist, prophesied that if a man of real ability were to appear in the Hashemite family, he would be sure to find "an almost universal following." The result, Blunt fancifully imagined, would be a "liberal Islam."
Ambitious in the extreme and no sort of "liberal," Sharif Hussein, the then Guardian of the Two Shrines, perceived the outbreak of World War I as his chance to become a future King of the Arabs, and with consummate skill embroiled the Ottoman Turks and the British in his schemes of aggrandizement. In his entry in Who's Who he comically recorded among his recreations, "The problems of the Near East," of which he was a prime specimen. In the post-1918 settlement, the British invented the kingdoms of Transjordan (later Jordan) and Iraq for his two sons Abdullah and Faisal I respectively. But the Sharif himself neglected home ground. Unexpectedly, a local rival, Abdul Aziz ibn Saud, soon drove him out of Mecca and Medina into exile and early death, usurped the title of Guardian of the Two Shrines, appointed himself king, and founded the present Saudi dynasty.
Incorporating the Palestinian territory of the West Bank, King Abdullah consolidated Jordan and so further legitimized the rule of his family. In 1951 he was murdered by a Palestinian. His grandson and successor, Hussein, then survived for almost half a century. An honorable man, he ran what might be called a benign police state. The murder in 1958 of his cousin Faisal II put an end to a proposed Hashemite federation of Jordan and Iraq. At the time of the 1967 war, though, King Hussein allied himself to Nasser and so lost the West Bank. In the 1991 Gulf War, he sided with Saddam. Mistakes at this level cost him dearly. For years his heir was his brother, Crown Prince Hassan, but a few days before his death in 1999 he abruptly decided instead to bequeath the throne to his eldest son, Abdullah II, a young man in his mid 30s without much experience outside the army.
Crown Prince Hassan accepted his disinheritance gracefully. Now 55, he has the manners, and even the appearance, of an English gentleman. His voice is positively fruity. He wrote, or at least put his name to, a short but favorable book about Christians in the Middle East. His wife is a vivacious Pakistani. A longtime fixture at international gatherings, he can be relied on for common sense. Expectation is gathering around him. Recently he caused a sensation by turning up without warning at a conference in London of Iraqi opposition leaders, many of them ex-generals. Discreetly, he claimed to be present merely as an observer, but he could not have made it plainer that if the position were open after the downfall of Saddam, he would be available to be king of Iraq. Stung, King Abdullah said that his uncle had "blundered," and as a result "we're all picking up the pieces." Rushing in panic to Washington and London, Abdullah is currently pleading that war against Iraq would be a "tremendous mistake" and "the whole thing might unravel." Rumors circulate that he is in Saddam's pocket. Probably he is afraid that a Hashemite federation of Jordan and Iraq might after all be created, with his uncle becoming supremo.
Other claimants descend from the Iraqi branch of the Hashemites. One is Prince Adil ibn Faisal, an eccentric character at present detained in Morocco for using false identity papers. He claims that Iraqi opposition groups are persecuting him. More plausible is Sharif Ali bin Hussein, whose mother was Faisal II's aunt. Just two years old at the time of the 1958 massacre of his branch of the royal family, he has been a banker in London, and now has a Constitutional Monarchy Movement backing him. He too attended the recent London conference.
Political decisions in Washington, and facts on the ground in the Middle East, will ultimately resolve all the jockeying for position. Restoration of a Hashemite to the throne of Iraq has its logic at a time when rulers and boundaries are in question. But if justice were properly to be done, Saudi Arabia ought to be broken up, and the Hijaz and the two holy cities of Mecca and Medina returned to the Hashemites, who have a more legitimate title to rule than the Saudi family. There might then be a "liberal" Islam after all. That would be a truly historic vindication.
A king is can serve as an effective symbol of national unity and an inhibitor of radicalism and seperatism, two big dangers in a post-Saddam Iraq.
That Shah did not have a stellar human rights record, but to call him oppresive is inaccurate. Few people other than Communists or radical Islamic subversives found his regime oppresive.
If the Soviets brought him down they had a hell of a lot of help from the Iranian people who are, in the end, the judge of who is and is not "good" for Iran.
Actually, they had very little help from the people of Iran. The Islamic revolution was not a popular revolt. The fact that the Shah's son enjoys widespread popularity among Iraninas today seems to indicate quite a favorable judgement about the Shah.
......constitutional monarchy.....
To this I would add the word "interim", as in 'interim constitutional monarchy'. Remember, ultimate power corrupts ultimately. Also.............
Toward the end of the 19th century, Wilfrid Scawen Blunt, a British Arabist, prophesied that if a man of real ability were to appear in the Hashemite family, he would be sure to find "an almost universal following." The result, Blunt fancifully imagined, would be a "liberal Islam."
Fanciful is only one of the words I'd use. More likely it would likely result in a Pan-Arabic state that is/was the goal of Saddam and Osama in the first place.
No 21st Century Caliphates!
Perhaps, but also remember that a constitutional monarcy has highly limited, not ultimate, power, that tends to decrease over time.
And this guy needs a job....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.