Culture of Hostility to Authority Social Disaster
If we had justifications for the hostility that we had against the previous powers that had deprived us of our sense of being as a nation and subjugated our people without letting us having the basic rights, there would be no excuse for this dark wave of hostility that now some have against the legitimate authority that have been elected by the people of Kurdistan who have scarified a great deal for freedom and liberty. Therefore, journalists and educators should work to spread the culture of love and respect for governance, not denigration, and to be cautious about the fall of the privilege of the state among the citizens, and this is for the sake of preserving the sacredness of law in Kurdistan. Although, for instance, Socrates knew that the government at his time was corrupt, he drank the poisonous drink. This can be seen as a lesson for those who want to learn. There was also something like that in the Islamic literature for preventing blind fitnah. Thus, there is not a constructive civil attitude that supports such hostility to Authority. Those who spread the hostility to the authority want to deconstruct the thinking system of society, to eliminate the respect to the law, and to create a pessimistic view among the Kurds who want to establish an independent state in which law is sovereign and state is authority.
I am not misleading anyone through this piece of writing to accept any form of corruption that authorities do, either through the absence of equal opportunities, or the absence of values of justice in distributing wealth and occupation, and also the phenomenon of nepotism and clientelism. God forbid if I find myself among those who promote corruption in the world especially in Kurdistan where its people have not enjoyed their independence and liberty yet. What I want to assert in this article is that the authority is a cultural and constitutional concept which cannot be abstained from by society that has its tradition, land, and common sense of affiliation. The dream of the Kurds of having their own authority is watered with the blood of Peshmarga, still Kurdistan's mountains is telling Peshmarga's epics and their fight against oppressors and rapists. The historical epics that had done for this day are for the sake of democracy and electing the legitimate authority. It was really a pleasant dream that few had believed that it would come true soon.
There is a base in the science of Islamic jurisprudence which is derived from the Sharia law states: Sharia law aims at achieving the interests of people because God goes without purpose and tempering. There is also a broad classification for the interests of people, which according to their importance can be seen as follows:
1. The most necessary interests that without them life cannot be led and upon which the system of life is established.
2. The less necessary interests that are not at the level of the most necessary interests. They facilitate the ways of life and guarantee the protection of daily activities.
3. Desirable interests that include conduct, manners, and behavior.
There is not a philosophy supporting lack of authority and the uselessness of power in society because if there is not an authority, chaos will prevail in society. Logic and wisdom become valueless. Law, authority, and society mandatorily need each other. Without them, it is impossible to suppress and control instincts and desires. That is why the necessity of law and authority embed in jurisprudence. Experts of political jurisprudence in Islam, Al-Mawardi in his book Al-Ahkam Al-Sultania, and Al-Ghazali in his book Fazaeh Al-Battnia, stressed the need of authority. Yet they argued whether the bases would be mind or Sharia. However, they both agree that authority is social necessity and without which the world will corrupt and we cannot survive. Thus, authority is seen as one of the necessities and without it societies cannot survive. The position of the opposition, however, is lower because it is an assistance and necessity for democratic system. If we compare opposition with authority in this regard, we realize that authority has more responsibilities and in charge before its people and the world. In ruling the society, authority is responsible for providing disciplines, values, laws, instructions, security, welfare, and achieving justice. The authority would also challenge the people who elected it if they feel they are affected by a law or an order. Whereas the opposition's sole role is to raise the awareness of classes of people if they are deprived of their rights. No one will put the burden on the opposition's shoulders as they are observers looking to find a gap or catch hunting. If men in authorities have some temporary welfare because of their position—this is for a time transferred—this is only for the dangerousness of their positions. This is also mentioned in other countries' laws: "alghanam blgharam" which means one commits to a job in return for some privilege. This is the base of reconciliation and achieving a balance between societal and individual interests. This means, laws have never been adopted only for rulers' interests. Some tyrants were executed by the same law that he rules by. That is why it is said that laws are blind and have an abstract quality. Although this old image of law was criticized in my doctoral dissertation in 1979 in the University of Baghdad, there is a need for a profound vision of the different circumstances and its impact on the formation of Justice, which is called individualization in penology.
Is there a scale which can weigh both sides equal between the needs of a nation and people's views or between opposition and authority? While opposition's role can be limited only in monitoring government's performance and telling people that there would be better performances than this.
I do not want to belittle the opposition because in the sound and rational opposition lies the essence of democracy. Without a real opposition, one cannot talk about democracy and there is no democracy without accepting the other. Thus, if a government restricts oppositions without legal validity, it will provide evidence for its performance by itself. Since law is above all, returning to anything except law is cunning. The anger of the people from their rulers in the democratic system is reflected in the results of the ballot box; in a democratic and modern political system, the reference is a constitution, parliament, and binding international treaties. Modern constitutions have confirmed, including the Iraqi constitution and the draft constitution of Kurdistan Region that the people are the source of authority, it is neither the street nor any national, religious or military charisma that can mount the will of the conscious people. I think that the awareness of the people has exceeded recently a stage of revolutionary legitimacy which was an invention for the necessities of the rescue at the stage of popular revolts, and will surpass also an invention of streets after the new movement called Arab Spring, and it restored the mind of the wise and the will of the people driving the ship towards safety.
If this comparison between the government and the opposition is seen as a general evaluation of the nature and performance of each, then the elected Kurdish authority has a special status. In addition to its necessity for providing security, stabilizing society, and protecting freedom and liberty like all the other authorities in society, it is also the dream of our forefathers who have buried under this land with this dream in their minds and never seen Kurdish flag waving in the capital of Kurdistan.
Sadly, at times some media in Kurdistan portray an ugly image of Kurdish authority because of the action of some officials. This is a grave breach in the Kurdish house and an attempt to suffocate a premature baby in its mother's womb. Is it not a social disaster?
Thus, if these are the characteristics of the Kurdish government, then the responsibility of its leaders will multiply to protect it from any form of corruption and manipulation. This will not lessen the responsibilities of the opposition and the like to protect this experience that many people died for and not benefited from.
It is obvious that the concept of power has been changed according to the evolution of human consciousness. We do not want to explain these developments. What is important is that human beings have exceeded the stages of absolute power and reached to the state of law and constitutional legitimacy. It is no longer acceptable in the international law to have illegal and unconstitutional states. I am not Sultan advisers since they ruled nations like sheep. Yet, the authority that is elected freely is the embodiment of the will of people. Hence, any hostility to authority means hostility to the will of people. Those who cultivate this kind of hostility among the new Kurdish generation who have not witnessed the Anfal and The National Guard or the Popular Army persecution, frustrate them and kill their hope to step towards achieving our people's dream which is the establishment of our sovereign state.
As I have said, system is God's destiny in the universe and nature. God says "we created everything in destiny". System is an instinct in animals and insects. It is the will of a rational man. It is needed for human survival and it is the outcome of the will of people. If there is corruption in the work and actions of some officials, the regulators including parliament, prosecutors, and civil society in general have to expose this corruption and moving the case against it. If the government does not cooperate with the regulators for achieving reform, or if it fails in dealing with the process of reform, it has to step down in an election for another government that is able to adjust the rule of law.
Journalists, oppositions, and others can bitterly criticize the government officials if they fail to carry out their responsibilities. Yet, they do not have the right to spoil the dignity of a nation and the authority, and to promote the idea of paralleling the authority to the devil as it leads to chaos and disorder.
Another thing which should be mentioned is that the opposition may detach itself from the results of the government's failure to achieve the required services to the people though it shares power through parliamentary representatives. However, there are some problems that cannot be solved if we do not return to the constitution which gains legitimacy from the people and is protected by the court. The problem is caused by the law which its mission is to limit the freedoms. Freedom per se is the first principle of the concept and the bases of human rights which are unanimously agreed by the international humanitarian protocols. Without it, there is neither life nor dignity. Thus, it is the duty of both authorities and the laws to protect these freedoms, but this does not end the conflict between freedom in a broad sense and freedom limited by law. Restrictions are restrictions even if they are made by gold. Struggling for interests from all aspects is a disease that causes the crisis. These discussions and arguments will continue as long as this disease exists. Only international laws and constitutions that are political and legal references can resolve this debate. In addition, Immanuel Kant, the western wise philosopher, states in the 18th century that "Perpetual peace is only found in the graveyard".
People have chosen democracy as the best system because it guarantees the freedom of both individuals and society, it provides peaceful exchange of power, and it provides equal opportunity for attaining wealth, science, and social and political status for all. Yet, democracy does not mean happiness and cannot solve the many problems of humanity alone. It, like all the heavenly and earthly philosophies, cannot end the conflict and controversy within human beings both individuals and society. It cannot uproot corruption on earth though it works for this. "Corruption does appear on land and sea because of (the evil) which men's hands have done" [Al-Rome: 41]. Abu Humaid bin Sa'd As-Sa'idi (May Allah bepleased with him) reported: The Prophet (PBUH) employed a man from the tribe of Al-Azd named Ibn Lutbiyyah as collector of Zakat. When the employee returned (with the collections) he said: "(O Prophet (PBUH)!) This is for you and this is mine because it was presented to me as gift." Messenger of Allah (PBUH) rose to the pulpit and praised Allah and extolled Him. Then he said, "I employ a man to do a job and he comes and says: 'This is for you and this has been presented to me as gift'? Why did he not remain in the house of his father or the house of his mother and see whether gifts will be given to him or not? By Allah in Whose Hand is the life of Muhammad, if any one of you took anything wrongfully, he will bring it on the Day of Resurrection, carrying it on (his back), I will not recognize anyone of you, on the Day of Resurrection with a grunting camel, or a bellowing cow, or a bleating ewe." Then he raised his hands till we could see the whiteness of his armpits. Then he said thrice, ''O Alla! Have I conveyed (Your Commandments)"? [Al-Bukhari and Muslim]. The central point of conflict is the self-interest: "Say each works according to his manner"[Al-isra: 84]. A wise man never justifies something that all agree upon. We all agree on the concepts of democracy, state, liberty, mechanisms of elections, justice, equality, self-determination of nations, the right of individuals determining their lives, but our different views are controlled by our past or the unknown reasons. That is why the conflicts continue. Yet, there is a big difference between a deadly conflict and a conflict by words as it is said "difference does not invalidate the situation." The latter conflict leads to awareness and cooperation, which we as Kurds need to have this kind so as to support and develop democracy in our region despite some attempts to fall all its leaves.
We, as Kurds, have not enjoyed the taste of liberty and freedom yet. Still there is a person like al-Shahristani comes and wants to deny our rights that are asserted in the Iraqi constitution. Despite historical imposition of dividing the Kurdish land, we are still punished severely so as not to think about independence. Although forceful combination away from concerns of coexistence itself means death, separation, which strengthens the bonds of the historical relationship between the neighborhoods, is the most powerful images of combination. However, some of our compatriots, who have lost in the game of democracy in the previous elections and not gained enough votes to run the country, want to destroy our new experience in governance in the midst of chaos, and compare it to the regimes that their peoples cheer their fall like Bin-Ali and Hussni Mubarak states. If they think better and change their energies for destruction into cooperation and fight against corruption without defaming Kurdistan Region, they will become closer to the heart of their sympathizers and will gain the support of those who are with this new experience and consider the region hope and dream for all parts of Kurdistan. Then, what happened and is happening according to the political map drawn by the results of the elections will not be the end of history, but we are still in the beginning. There may be a day when the opposition would gain the majority of votes and hold the authority, then they would draw a new political map and the other parties would withdraw. This is a game of democracy. No party will be able to retain the majority continuously. Did not Churchill, British Prime Minister fall despite his successful leadership and his victory over Hitler in World War II? It is the nature of people; they want change, even though in the faces of those who were heroes of the sagas of struggle for national liberation. This is what we are witnessing in the ancient democracies, and we have no magic to be excepted of it. As Arabs say "more people do not want system, if they are truthful, half of them will earn the justice".
Whatever their logical justifications for their protests in the democratic system, the objective evaluations will rest on the consequences and the results of what they did were disasters: first, they tried to show heinous image of Kurdish experience of governance which is the first Kurdish government at this time among the international communities. Secondly, they have been weakening the sense of acceptance of the other albeit for a limited period of time. Thirdly, it is the opposition's refusal to cooperate with the majority of the authority which depends on the similar refusal based on the treatment of the other. If the opposition wins the elections, they will meet these social disasters which I think neither the authority nor the opposition wants this.
At times, one makes a mistake and uses the method of the ostrich to deal with the reality. He does not want to believe in what he sees. In our harsh bitter history, there were many examples telling us that the Kurds themselves were obstacles and causes of their failure. We fear that the story of the government and the opposition in this new age of the rise of the Kurds and their quest for independence will become victims of the past personal and tribal conflicts and will prolong them to the postmodern era. We ask the almighty God kindness so as not to reach this.