Iraq’s Parliament Speaker said on August 14, 2006 that he is thinking about quitting.

He claims it is because he can’t take the unfriendliness of the opposition.

In the case of Iraq there are two oppositions - well, three. The Shiites, the Sunnis and the Kurds. The Shiites and the Kurds want their own separate regions (read country - not state) and the Sunnis don’t want that. They want the right to tell everyone what to do not just themselves.

International observers call the present government of Iraq ‘fragile’.

Reportedly Iraqis are getting sick and tired with their government’s inability to provide basic services like water and electricity.

To make matters worse the Parliament is on vacation. It’s August and even though the country is blowing up around them they took a few days off for the beach and some drinks.

All three sides have been quoted as saying that they wouldn’t mind a new speaker or words to that effect and so we see even the government itself unable to govern itself.

The Speaker of Iraq’s Parliament isn’t too popular with American generals in Iraq either. We can only imagine what went through Donald Rumsfeld’s mind when he heard that the speaker said, “The U.S. occupation is the work of butchers under the slogan of democracy and human rights and justice.”

Later the same day he was recorded as saying, “I personally think whoever kills an American soldier in defense of his country would have a statue built for him in that country.”

A few days after the Speaker poured hatred from his soul the Prime Minister of Iraq made a speech to the combined Houses of the United States Congress and the Senators and Representatives sat attentively with their hands folded as he poured honey from his mouth.

It is clear there is a problem in Iraq and with Iraq. Iraq is a problem.

The people do not seem to be interested in the democracy that is being put upon them. Talking to them while pointing guns at them doesn’t seem to be working.

Now that the fighting is supposed to stop you would think that Iraqis would want to take care of themselves but they aren’t.

Why?

There is a 19th century British writer by the name of John Stuart Mill who can shed some light on this. Considering that the present Iraq war had its roots in 19th century Great Britain there is some justice in examining his words.

He set forth quite clearly some social conditions in which Representative Government is Inapplicable.

Now we all know that, in spite of the caliber of many of the Representatives we may have in the House of Representatives, that representative government is the best kind of government to have.

Some countries are not developed enough, however, to carry this sort of government and with that, I will allow Mr. Mill to continue.

“As they range lower and lower in development, that form of government will be, generally speaking, less suitable to them, though this is not true universally; for the adaptation of a people to representative government does not depend so much upon the place they occupy in the general scale of humanity as upon the degree in which they possess certain special requisites; requisites, however, so closely connected with their degree of general advancement, that any variation between the two is rather the exception than the rule.”

So just because the Iraqis know how to shop, grow crops and used nerve gas against the Iranians doesn’t mean that they are developed enough to have a Representative Government.

Mr. Mill continues;

“First, then, representative, like any other government, must be unsuitable in any case in which it can not permanently subsist–i.e., in which it does not fulfill the three fundamental conditions enumerated in the first chapter. These were, 1. That the people should be willing to receive it. 2. That they should be willing and able to do what is necessary for its preservation. 3. That they should be willing and able to fulfill the duties and discharge the functions which it imposes on them. “

Let us take point 1 - That the people should be willing to receive it.

Please recall that the United States invaded Iraq and replaced the government with one of its own choosing.

Let us take point 2 - That they should be willing and able to do what is necessary for its preservation.

Many Iraqis, quite understandably, don’t want Iraq to continue to exist. They want to be independent. They want Kurdistan, Shiistan and Sunnistan. It is clear they couldn’t care less what happens to the ‘central’ government as long as it leaves them alone. Iraq is like an extreme form of Confederacy - not unlike Canada.

Let us take point 3 - That they should be willing and able to fulfill the duties and discharge the functions which it imposes on them.

We saw all the Iraqis with purple fingers.

Actually I saw more Americans with purple fingers than I saw Iraqis, but that is beside the point.

Pulling a lever is not all there is to running a Representative Government even though some Americans think that’s all they have to do. Visit any local town hall meeting if you want to see what I mean.

In spite of that Representative Government requires attention to detail, an independent judiciary and respectable leaders - all of which are lacking in Iraq.

Mr. Mill makes quite the point for the British involving the United States in Iraq with the fake documents, (remember those?) ;

“The willingness of the people to accept representative government only becomes a practical question when an enlightened ruler, or a foreign nation or nations who have gained power over the country, are disposed to offer it the boon.”

So there you have it. Iraq has Representative Government because the United States and Great Britain decided to give it to them.

We can identify in present-day Iraq an indifference to the chaotic and imaginary government that rules there. Let’s see what Mr. Mill from the 19th Century has to say about that indifference ;

“In any case in which the attempt to introduce representative government is at all likely to be made, indifference to it, and inability to understand its processes and requirements, rather than positive opposition, are the obstacles to be expected. These, however, are as fatal, and may be as hard to be got rid of as actual aversion; it being easier, in most cases, to change the direction of an active feeling than to create one in a state previously passive. When a people have no sufficient value for, and attachment to, a representative constitution, they have next to no chance of retaining it.”

Please note that last line, “When a people have no sufficient value for, and attachment to, a representative constitution, they have next to no chance of retaining it.”

Gives you chills, doesn’t it?

Who needs the evening news when writers from the 19th Century can teach us all we need to know about democracy in Iraq.

Let’s get particular. Follow this closely. It addresses the very problem being experienced by the Speaker of Iraq’s Parliament right now.

“In every country, the executive is the branch of the government which wields the immediate power, and is in direct contact with the public; to it, principally, the hopes and fears of individuals are directed, and by it both the benefits, and the terrors, and prestige of government are mainly represented to the public eye. Unless, therefore, the authorities whose office it is to check the executive are backed by an effective opinion and feeling in the country, the executive has always the means of setting them aside or compelling them to subservience, and is sure to be well supported in doing so. Representative institutions necessarily depend for permanence upon the readiness of the people to fight for them in case of their being endangered. If too little valued for this, they seldom obtain a footing at all, and if they do, are almost sure to be overthrown as soon as the head of the government, or any party leader who can muster force for a coup de main, is willing to run some small risk for absolute power.”

The question is who is the one willing to run some small risk for absolute power? The Shiites? The Sunnis? The Kurds? The answer, of course, is not important because it could be any one of them.

Mr. Mill has another possibility for the failure of Representative Government to take hold ;

“The third is when the people want either the will or the capacity to fulfill the part which belongs to them in a representative constitution. When nobody, or only some small fraction, feels the degree of interest in the general affairs of the state necessary to the formation of a public opinion, the electors will seldom make any use of the right of suffrage but to serve their private interest, or the interest of their locality, or of some one with whom they are connected as adherents or dependents.”

That sounds eerily like the party in power now, doesn’t it? No one has been listening to the Shiites or the Kurds and the Sunnis have been feathering their own nest. To make matters worse the amateurs from Washington, DC and London have been encouraging them to do it.

Mr. Mill continues ;

“ The small class who, in this state of public feeling, gain the command of the representative body, for the most part use it solely as a means of seeking their fortune.”

The level of corruption in Iraq points this out clearly.

I see in this particular writing of John Stuart Mill, “Considerations on Representative Government John Stuart Mill” a great deal of important information that could be applied not only in Iraq but in other far flung nations like Indonesia and Myanmar where a confusion exists between Representative Government and military dictatorship.

The final conclusion of these situations - without careful consideration and knowledge about what can happen and will happen if they are not handled carefully can be generations lost to ignorance, disease, war, poverty and may even, like the overheated experiment in Cambodia, to genocide.

Considering the situation and the possible outcomes Civil War in Iraq is the least of their worries.