Cicero, a statesman who ruled Rome and who was murdered on the orders of the tyrant Anthony [of Anthony and Cleopatra fame] in 44 BC, had once opined that a leader ought to issue commands that were just, advantageous to the nation and in keeping with the law. He added that the laws of a state were the ultimate sources of legitimacy and that even the just ruler ought to obey them because, in the end, the law was the “silent” leader.
Cicero’s recommendations were harsh, and as recorded by history, he paid the ultimate price — his head was cut off — when he defended the republic at a time when tyranny gained the upper hand. Although he supported a moderate and balanced form of government, he concluded that the most preferable type of rule was monarchy because royal qualities were essential for justice, especially since man, generally speaking, failed to create equality among citizens. Once impartiality was achieved, Cicero posited, leading citizens or members of the intelligentsia would readily accept that ordinary people would cherish similar freedoms, guided by their mutual desires for stability and prosperity.
Twenty centuries later, the vast majority of the more than seven billion inhabitants on Earth were still far from such an ideal, as tyranny led to the rise of oligarchies in many lands, mob rule governed directly or indirectly and anarchy reared its ugly head from time to time. In the absence of effective and just laws, nation-states toyed with forms of oppression, including the sophisticated types that pretended to rule under the law when the latter were selectively applied to benefit tiny minorities. That was the chief reason why chaotic movements turned into revolutions with no end in sight.
The latest such development in the Arab World is the gradual unravelling of Iraq that entered a new phase in its ongoing wars since 1918. In fact, and notwithstanding his parliamentary victory a few weeks ago, Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki pursued policies that ensured fresh mayhem. Few should now be surprised that Iraq, as we knew it, is no longer a viable state or that Al Maliki’s initiatives guaranteed its disintegration. Indeed, most Iraqis were prepared for that outcome, as Baghdad lost its bearings. In the words of the prime minister of Iraq’s autonomous Kurdish region, Natchervan Barzan, it was “almost impossible” for Iraq to return to the situation that existed before the city of Mosul was captured by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil), better known by its Arabic acronym, Da’ish. Barzan concentrated on the Sunni jihadist group’s blitzkrieg over Mosul with less than a thousand fighters but said nothing as to how two Iraqi Army brigades, presumably well-trained and equipped, could come apart so fast. Moreover, he said even less about his own Kurdish fighters, the Peshmergas (literally “those who confront death”), who stormed Tikrit as additional Iraqi Army troops fled that city.
Beyond Da’ish or what regional powers attempted to accomplish in Iraq, it was increasingly clear that the country would not remain unified, which meant that the post-First World War design that forcefully morphed four governorates together, was slated to end. This reality emerged in the aftermath of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq when, the then Senator and now the Vice-President, Joe Biden championed an effective federal system that was “explicitly allowed by the Iraqi constitution (at the insistence of the Kurds)”, which devolved power away from Baghdad. Biden denied the proposition in 2006, but he probably was ahead of his time, presumably because he understood that Al Maliki and other Iraqi officials could no longer rule with justice.
Lack of confidence
Al Maliki failed to impose law and order as Iraqis were subjected to routine atrocities that targeted civilians from all communities before the past few weeks’ focus on Iraqi soldiers and volunteers. Under his rule, Baghdad became gradually disunited, as various factions prevented each other from finding the necessary ways to live together in relative peace and harmony. He blamed the so-called Sunni extremist militants while he disenfranchised many, sided with Damascus against the vast majority of the Syrian people, acted as a conduit for Iran in the region and insulted most Arab Gulf rulers. His performance, to put it mildly, did not engender confidence.
Cicero believed that there were universal laws that governed human relations and that these were led by fundamental freedoms that imposed certain rules on the leaders. He stressed that those who embraced a balance of power ruled with justice, although he noted that true leaders were those who displayed exceptional character and integrity. He counselled the latter to keep their friends close and their enemies even closer, hoping that they would rely on intelligence to reach sound decisions based on facts and recommended that they learn the art of compromise to advance the interests of the nation. He also added two specific prescriptions that applied to Iraqis and others: Namely, that good leaders ought to realise that corruption destroyed societies just as much as unjust wars did.
Dr Joseph A. Kechichian is the author of Legal and Political Reforms in Saudi Arabia (London: Routledge, 2013).
