by Walter Onubogu

Created on: November 29, 2008

Now the question is what does "better" excatly mean in the context of Iraq ? I would argue that if "better" means having stability return, having an end to sectarian violence, having social services and a working state - national infrastructure, then yes. However I do believe given recent security related improvements in Iraq, that the country can still thrive eventually and doesn't need a tyrannical dictator like Saddam to stir them through.

It is true though that if you ask many Iraqis today that they will tell you that they " long for the days of certaintity" under Saddam. This doesn't mean they endorse what he did or l really like him or his regime, just that they have a nostalgia for a time when Iraqis didn't find themselves divided and fighting against each other and when state and social services functioned (more or less).

If America hadn't invaded in 2003 there is still a chance that Saddam's rule would have become more tyrannical and oppressive and it is questionable if the Kurds wouldn't have tried to extend the limited autonomy they already enjoyed, thus with the potentional for greater confrontation with the authoritiies in Baghdad. Overall it also clear that Iraq under the UN sanctions regime was growing weaker and weaker day by day under Saddam and essential goods and services ( once abundent in the bountyful era of King OIL in the 1970s) were amiss in the country. People would have rebelled sooner or later against the tyrannical dictatorship. Brutally stifling dissent was a definite hallmark of Saddam's regime and it also begs the question if the restless Shia community would have not mounted more substantial resistance to Saddam's tyranny had he stayed at the helm of Iraq's state affairs.

I think in the end it boils down to what people expect in terms of a "better life" and what trade offs they are willing to make for what they seek. Iraq has no national memory of ethnic reconciliation or democratic power sharing and that is what along with poor services, fragile stability gains, declining living standards and continued American troop presence bedivils its current path towards progress, stability and internal peace.

Let us not forget, life was grim under Saddam, regardless of how much stability he may have brought by using state repression to quell opposition and dissent. The only good thing he did was to protect religious minorities, like the Chaldean Christians and Assyrians and he didn't tolerate religious fanatcism, unlike today.

Stability must not come at a cost (lack of personal freedoms, and democracy) such as under Saddam. I believe however that Iraq needs a democratically elected "strong leader" who is willing to give direction and who has a clear vision and the authority to seek the mandate of the people. If so people in Iraq will come to appreciate and understand that being strong doesn't require a brutal dictatorship but intelligent and accountable leadership within a pluralistic and democratic setting.

Without Saddam, in spite of all the barriers and communal violence in Iraq, Iraqis will eventually understand what is at stake and will at some point in the future fully embrance a political culture defined by democratic parameters and not by the force of the fist or gun as it used to be under Saddam.

Learn more about this author, Walter Onubogu.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.