What does it mean to be a politician in Iraq?

What is a true politician? My view is it's those who struggle for the political and economic development of their country in a way that can protect its sovereignty and security, as well as equitably distribute power and wealth. Politics within Iraq needs modernisation that frees it from the legacy of governors and sultans, in which a few people monopolise wealth and power, and impose the logic of power, dominance, and surrender to the status quo.

Iraq as a country has gone through different political stages since its founding. During the monarchy (1921-1957), Iraq went through a semi-democratic stage, in which the politician must be pragmatic, loyal to or close to the visions and ideas of the king and his entourage. 

The Republican era was characterised by two periods, each with its own characteristics. The period that preceded the Baath rule (1957-1968) can be considered the radical revolutionary period that changed the foundations of the monarchy.

The politician in it had to be a revolutionary who sought to remove reactionary ideas, even if that was superficial. As for the period of Baath rule (1968-2003), when the authority was tyrannical and monopolised legislation, implementation, and the judiciary, the politician in it was loyal to the authority and the regime and thus to the supreme leader. At this time there was no room for any opposition at all.

Given this context, talking about a real and effective politician in an oppressive atmosphere means nothing and cannot achieve progress. It is impossible to imagine a politician calling for the advocacy of minority rights, the rights of women and children, or freedom of expression, or raising the slogan 'No to the death penalty' in light of an arbitrary, totalitarian approach that believed in monopolising wealth and power.

Building a state that transcends this legacy and transcends history is still a dream in Iraq. Reality needs a process of political modernisation in which the values of justice, the bonds of the state of law, rights, freedoms, institutions, and the separation of powers are strengthened. 

This can only be achieved through the free will of the people and freedom from what can be understood as 'viruses' that ravage society in all its joints, particularly the viruses of fanaticism and extremism, the exclusion and marginalisation of others, and the tendency for excessive control of power.

The indicators of this modernisation lie in a number of questions: How can political progress occur in Iraq when the forces at the forefront of the political scene pave the way to corrupt the electoral process with fraud and unfair competition, by buying off the conscience of the people and the simple ones with privileges and false incomes? How can political parties strengthen the intended democratic project when they seek to empty the democratic institutions emerging from it of any democratic content or true representation? 

Political parties currently direct the will of voters to perpetuate the often psychological concepts of tribalism, fanaticism, sectarianism, populism, party quotas, and acceptance of the fait accompli. How can democratic change be achieved in Iraq, when ignorance still prevails over 20 per cent of Iraqi society? For example, there are about six million illiterate people who do not know how to read and write, according to official Iraqi data. Women's participation in the political process is merely an addition to the decor.

Political development is meaningless if politicians in Iraq do not seek economic modernisation, which would liberate Iraq from its economy based on rents, monopoly, and total dependence on oil products (as 95 per cent of Iraq's budget depends entirely on oil). 

Therefore, it is necessary to move to economies whose main characteristic is production and competition, to end an oligopoly that wields wealth and power. The power that most of the new Iraqi politicians employed as a source of further enrichment, excluding competitors, and obtaining public deals, is far from the terms and requirements of the required integrity, transparency and real competition.

After Baath Rule, a problem for the development of democracy in Iraq today is the pervasive mistrust in politicians. Politicians are seen as having more than one face, and to seek power, prestige, privileges and positions without paying attention to the interests of the people. 

Frankly, today, the name of a politician in Iraq is associated with any 'hypocrite' who you see talking about achievements that will happen in the future – 'We will work, we will build up, we will establish, etc.', and the people do not see any of them.

Politicians today produce speeches that are greater than their size and capabilities and broader than their popular bases. They talk about sovereignty while it does not exist at all or is violated on a daily basis; they talk about the importance of confining weapons to the state while they protect the militants, and have armed groups or militias; of the state of law when they are the first people to break the law daily. To be a politician in Iraq today means nothing but playing such roles.

To get out of this cycle, most Iraqis dream of discovering a real politician who can practically deliver on these slogans: 'No to corruption, no to monopoly, no to tyranny, yes to protecting sovereignty and building a state of law, institutions and human rights.'

William Warda is a human rights specialist and the co-founder of the Hammurabi Human Rights Organization, which is inspired by its focus on human rights, freedoms, justice and human dignity. He explores some of the key questions facing Iraq and the development of trust between people and politicians.