One can only describe the recent Egyptian revolution as great. No other word is more appropriate. This is the first time in recent Arab history that a popular revolution, led by ordinary people, has succeeded in toppling a long-established political regime. Arab regimes are usually toppled through military coups, mistakenly called ‘revolutions' such as the Egyptian coup of 1952, the Iraqi coup of 1958, Yemeni coup of 1962, the Libyan in 1969 and the series of Syrian coups between 1949 and 1970. However, the current situation is totally different. On this occasion it was the youth of Egypt, and Tunisia before them, who led the movement for change, while the military, thankfully, remained impartial. The Egyptians' slogan ‘the people want the the fall of the Regime' has now been turned into a chant echoed by Arabs all across the region, west, south and east. The Tunisian experience was new and inspirational. It opened Arab eyes, enabling them to envisage a civilized and peaceful way of attaining political change. Historically, Egypt's influential role has led the way for change across the Arab world and, no doubt, this most recent Egyptian example will, once again, be followed throughout the region. After toppling a regime, comes the more difficult process of establishing a new political system; one based on modern specifications which preserve the rights of the people and prevent the rise of another dictatorship. After the fall of the dictatorial Iraqi regime in April of 2003, Iraqis went through the experience of establishing a new regime, which was intended to be democratic. However, in contrast to the Egyptians and Tunisians, they did not have the honour of changing the dictatorial regime themselves. The Iraqi experience of establishing democratic institutions, formulating a new constitution and holding new elections over the last eight years is worthy of study by the Tunisians and Egyptians so that they avoid repeating the same grave mistakes that Iraqis made. The first thing that must be done is to draw up a new constitution that establishes a new political system. In Iraq, politicians kept arguing for two and a half years about the constitution. They resorted in the end to writing an interim constitution called the Transitional Administrative Law, or TAL, and in accordance with this, the first elections were held. As a result of those elections, a national assembly was formed which had the task of drawing up the ‘permanent' constitution for the country. As a consequence of writing up two constitutions in such a short period of time, and the insistence by some Iraqis that the constitution be written ‘by elected Iraqi hands', the new constitution came with many faults and contradictions which I have mentioned in a previous article. It is not of vital importance for those who write a constitution to be elected individuals, since it will be put before the people in a general referendum. It would be better if a committee of specialists, approved by political groups, were to be formed to write the constitution. The Iraqi constitution was born weak because those who wrote it were not specialists and they were under pressure, largely by America, to meet the deadlines imposed by the TAL. A strong constitution is one written for ‘all' the people, not according to the mood or whim of those who claim to represent the ‘majority'. It consists of principles that seek to achieve justice, and preserve freedoms and rights for all the people. It is not a political document that aims to arouse or allay fears of some groups. Some of those who participated in writing the Iraqi constitution had an unjustified sectarian or religious paranoia which could be explained by their lack of experience and political skill, while others were ‘fishing in muddy waters' in order to make political capital out of raising sectarian and religious slogans. These people have in fact gained a lot out of their activities and have since become important and influential figures. However, their medalling has caused a lot of damage to the fabric of Iraqi society and reduced opportunities for national progress. There is no need for a constitution to state religious creeds, as these will already exist in the consciences of their believers and writing them down in the constitution will not preserve them in any way, neither will omitting them ever make them disappear. In Britain for example, there is no written constitution, but there is a moral and ethical commitment by politicians and officials to the oral constitution and this has not been violated in recent history. The second important matter is how to deal with the symbols of the old regime, its leaders and those who obeyed its orders. The experience of ‘debaathification', in which some, Iraqis and Americans, wanted to imitate the German experience of deNazification, must not be repeated. DeNazification was clearly wrong. Even the Americans and Europeans, who imposed it in the first place, have now realised that it was wrong. Also, there are huge differences between Nazism and Baathism, and between Iraq and Germany. Not only did The Debaathification Law create new problems in Iraq, it planted seeds of hatred which may well flourish and cost Iraq dearly in years to come. A new regime must deal with all its citizens on the basis of justice and equality, including those who held high positions in the previous regime. Yes, there may be those who violated the law and the human rights of others and they must be held accountable for their actions, but there must be a time limit to this process, not exceeding two years. Why? So that the process itself does not inflame further hatred, and be used as a means to settle scores, creating repercussions for future generations. All efforts must be focussed on building the future, not trying the past. All organisational structures and necessary laws for political parties and elections, including an electoral data base, must be completed before setting a date for elections, no matter how long that takes. It is necessary for the process of holding elections to be professional, transparent and fair. Elections should also be monitored nationally and internationally. An election commission of independent people who are known for their integrity and professionalism should be set up so that free and fair elections can be conducted. It is important that the constitution clearly stipulates that political parties must not be established on ethnic, religious or sectarian basis. This is very important as political activity must be in the service of all its citizens, not some of them. Yes, any political group that seeks to discriminate between members of society on the basis of sect or ethnicity must be banned. Egyptians and Tunisians must look to the conflicts and animosities that have taken place and are taking place in Iraq. They have contributed to deepening disputes, rivalries and animosities in the country as well as creating new ones. These conflicts and disputes have brought the unqualified to leadership positions. Iraqis have realised over time that it is better to separate religion from politics. Recently, a large scale campaign for the separation of religion from politics has been launched. It seeks to put the subject firmly in the public domain, inviting discussion and seeking to persuade people that the national interest requires the separation of politics and religion and such a separation would benefit both religion and politics. It would stop politicians trading in religion for political purposes. This campaign has gained the support of thousands in the forefront of Iraqi society. It is available on the internet for those who wish to sign it (www.seculariraq.org). Human societies have made progress by taking heed of the successes and the failures of preceding peoples. There is now a dire need for others to benefit from the mistakes that Iraqis have made.
