Five Iranian aides in the city of Arbil on northern Iraq were arrested yesterday, just hours after president bush addressed the nation on his new measures to confront escalating situation in Iraq.
In the mean time, in recent weeks, Media close to republican camp have excessively focused on the crisis in Middle East which has now spread from strip of Gaza to China’s border with Afghanistan.
We also heard bush’s decision to send more troops to Iraq and to stop helps allegedly from Iran and Syria.
All these events and happenings as well as news and articles being published by credible sources signal a very real threat and warning in the region. Four years after Iraq’s invasion, the problem in Middle-East is no longer limited to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or anti-western and anti-American menace led by Iran. It is now a very grave and unpredictable potentiality of war between different sectarian-aligned powers in Middle East, a completely devastating war.
Wall Street Journal portrayed such possibility in a thorough article published on 01-09-07, titled If Iraq Worsens, Allies See Nightmate Case .
I see the problem in the Middle East as a very real imminent danger which is a matter of important concern. If the world powers including the United States neglect to take necessary measure aimed at cooling down the problem, there could be severe consequences not only for people and states of Middle East but for the whole world.
Although the war in Iraq has gone wrong and you can hardly find anyone today who support the war and despite many people claim that they have been all against the war from the first day, I believe Bush’s decision to put more troops on the ground in Iraq is the only remaining option. I even think that it might lack enough strength required to affect the insurgency and violence in Iraq.
If we fail to stop the violence and growing hatred between people of different faiths and sects in Iraq, sooner or later, we might face something much worse in scale and depth.

When you are not an American and live in Middle East, the United States flag, after your own country’s, is the second flag that you learn about. I am from Iran. From early years of childhood, I still remember that there were America’s name and flag everywhere.
When I entered school, on the first day of classes, each class was asked to form a line in front of the main building. There was a podium in front of student lines and there was an Iranian flag raised on the side of the podium. But there was also another flag at the school. This flag was indeed, the US flag. It was painted on the ground just before the main entrance of the school. All students were supposed to walk over it every morning, and as they were walking over, they were taught to pound their shoes on the flag as hard as they could.
Thus, even for a child who did not know about the US flag before starting education, the first day of school was enough to be informed. However, it was not the whole story. On government-supported demonstrations and street protests, people were carrying American flags painted or printed on placards and chanting America’s name.
We had courses about the Islamic Revolution. The courses were designed to advocate government ideas about the world, and since, America, the great Satan as it was called by the Islamic government, was the most important enemy of the state, it was not odd to have most of such courses focused on America. Indeed, the courses were quite informative. They taught us that stars on America’s flag are representations of fifty states and that America is a federal country.
The great Satan, the flag of America painted on the ground, the chants and slogans in rallies and demonstrations, they were all the state version of an offensive approach toward America, and they were advertised publicly with all the possible means. Still, it was only a part of the story.
I did not learn about United States or its flag at school. I did not even learn about it on television. The first time I heard the name of America was when I was three or four years old. My mom and dad were at our kitchen speaking about how good our refrigerator was. They said: “It is an American refrigerator; American merchandise is always the most reliable.” For a three year old kid, this conversation is more memorable than all the state-supported propaganda. Nevertheless, parents’ opinion is the solid truth for a child.
I can recall that I saw the American flag for the first time on a T-shirt of a friend. I was told this is the “flag of America.” I may not be able to identify all the major events that helped me realize “America” is the great power, but I can definitely confirm that by the age of seven or eight, my childhood friends and I believed that “America” was a powerful and rich country and that all the good things – lets say toys, electronic games, cars and all other stuffs interesting for little school children – were being built there and ultimately “America’s flag” was the symbol of that notion.
By the time I graduated from high school, many of my schoolmates were thinking of America as the ultimate place for having the best possible future. I could understand this paradox between the official and unofficial concepts of the United States. Although years passed from the day I entered school, the government still publicized the notion of “the great Satan,” which was the official account of America. However, the unofficial notion was quite different. I could see people praising American name and flag or any other thing related to America. The ultimate country in their minds, successful in every field from development and freedom to a good experience of life, was America and the flag of the U.S. was an important reminder of that.
I also witnessed the effect that the U.S. had on my country and region. I read about people who had stood up against the U.S. I watched people protesting against American influence and its interventions in the region. I could feel how the emotions were mixed when it came to America. I met people who truly hated the U.S. or people who truly loved it. I knew people who were ready to die against or for America.
Being grown up in Iran where American diplomats once have been taken hostage, where an Iranian passenger plane has been struck down by a US ship and where several US Presidents have traveled to, I have my own understanding of US flag. The flag of United Stated of America reminds me of a union between institutions, empowered by their citizens, for a better cause. It reminds me of a culture of struggle and fight for advancement and betterment. This flag has the meaning of power and dignity in itself. It shows conquest and progress. Nevertheless, it is the only sign – may be I should call it footprint – of human being in space, on the moon.

The United States of America is one of the world’s best-known democracies. It is strange to mention that prior to the invasion by the U.S. government, Sadam Hussein, the former Iraqi dictator was claiming to have a democracy in Iraq too. Surprisingly, while the U.S. and Europeans credit Israel for its successful implementation of democracy in the region, many Arab countries do not recognize Israel as a democratic state. It seems that democracy in these examples is a very general term that can encompass many different models of government – sometimes totally different and incomparable such as the U.S. and Saddam’s Iraq. However, there should be a legitimate and cohesive definition of the term. What do we mean by a “democratic world?” What is the meaning of democracy that is used in our politicians’ speeches abundantly? I, as a journalist who has specifically followed news and events related to this term, perceive democracy as an equivalent to the definition of liberal democracy. Bounded by the rule of law and moderated by the constitution, democracy is a form of government where elected representatives of people govern the political system, protect the rights of citizens and restrain the majority from repressing the minority.
In ancient Greece, demokratia, the original word for democracy, means popular government. Democracy originates from the combination of two Hellenic words: “demos” and “kratos”. For Athenians in about 2600 years ago, “demos” meant the people and “kratos” meant the rule and authority. Democracy in English derives from the middle French word, dēmocrattica. The etymology of the word demonstrates that democracy, from the very beginning, has been used to explain the relationship between the people and the government. Original Hellenic word incorporates the government authority and the people, which is explained by many historians and political philosophers as a representation of a government consisted and ruled by the society for the society.
Historically, there are at least three principal forms of democracy: direct, representative and constitutional. Direct democracy largely describes a political system in which the citizens vote on all major governmental decisions. In a representative democracy, the people select representatives to a governing body that is responsible for all affairs of the government. Constitutional democracy, on the other hand, is indeed a form of representative democracy that is bounded to a set of practices and statutes that specifies how laws must be made and how the makers are to be chosen. Since referring to the public vote on all governmental decisions in today’s populous societies is nearly impossible, direct democracies are practically extinct at the present time. With significant population growth, governing a society without stipulated laws is also impracticable; therefore, representative form of democracy is virtually extinct. However, constitutional democracy, an advanced form of representative democracy, is more common today.
A constitutional democracy that incorporates civil rights and liberties is called a liberal democracy. The constitution of the U.S. is an example of a liberal democracy. This roughly 250 year old charter, is based on liberal values; a set of practices and statutes that will guarantee the rule of law, separation of powers and protection of liberties and minority rights. Liberties in a liberal constitution should include the freedom of speech, press and assembly. Minority rights mean that the wishes of a majority are not to override all the political and civil rights of the minority. A liberal democracy is indeed an essential improvement from the constitutional democracy. It has added a human dimension to a political system that is largely praised among the people.
In the era of human rights declaration the liberal democracy is the only acceptable form of democracy. Having passed two world wars in 20th century and encompassing many lessons learned from the past centuries, the civilized world inherited a set of values, which is widely acclaimed and recognized by many human societies. The rights of selection of government, expression of opinion, practice of religion, formation of an assembly and ownership of a property are among the most basic human rights. The declaration of human rights specifically and in details describes such rights. It seems that, as of the present, liberal democracy is the only exercised political system that can encompass these rights; mainly because, by holding elections it gives the citizens the right to select the government and by incorporating liberal values it includes other aspects of human rights declaration.
It is essential to remind that referring to people’s vote in a democracy is necessary but not sufficient. It is impossible to recognize a democracy without elections. In a democracy the first thing comes to mind is the vote of people, either for a referendum or an election. However, the voting itself is not enough. Elections or referendums must be held in a fair and free process. In an election, there should be at least two candidates. Candidates must be allowed to freely express their opinions and agenda. The minorities should have the right to participate in the political process. In a referendum, people should have the opportunity to debate the issues in public. Any political system that fails to provide such an environment has indeed failed to hold the elections. Cast votes in such a system are worthless and do not necessarily shows the will of the people.
Civil rights and liberties are important parts of a democracy. Iraq during the Saddam era, for example, had a constitution. Saddam also was holding both parliamentary and presidential elections, but other countries considered Iraq to be a totalitarian state, because, Saddam’s constitution did not grant liberty to its citizens. People were prosecuted under the Iraqi constitution for expressing their opinions. Egypt is another example. The country is governed by a constitutional democracy which allows elections and defines how the laws to be made and who are the law makers, however, the country lacks freedom of speech. People are not permitted to freely practice politics or participate in elections. Both Iraq and Egypt are not recognized as democratic states. Both of the countries do not have liberal democracies either. Since, civil rights and liberties are not fully observed in both countries. If a political system of a country does not conform to standards of a liberal democratic system it can not be considered a democracy.
Neither every country that only holds elections nor every government that only grants liberties to its citizens is democratic. Democracy is a mixture of the two elements. Democracy, in the 21st century, is indeed a form of government in which representatives of people, elected in fair and free elections, exercise decision-making. Their power should be subject to the rule of law and moderated by a constitution. The constitution should protect the rights and freedoms of citizens and constraint the government to the extent that the will of majority can not be exercised against the rights of minorities.

References:
1: The Oxford English Dictionary, Second ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991, page 442
2: G. Bingham Powell, Liberal Democracies, Second ed. New York: Routledge, 2004, page 205