Move FM Global News

30th December 2006 is arguably the most crucial day in the recent political history of not only Iraq but the entire Middle East and neighboring countries. Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi dictator that had been ruling the country unchallenged for over two decades was executed following an invasion by foreign forces spearheaded by the US. The legacy of Saddam is one of extremely polarized narratives, the shockwaves of which are still felt all the way to Muslim North Africa on one end and Pakistan on the other. Perhaps this overwhelming influence of an Arab dictator in the Mesopotamian region is a product of his unapologetic populism.

Often associated with authoritarian regimes, populism is a political strategy subject to much debate within the discourse of political science. Pitching it as a revolutionary cause, populist leaders have always claimed to represent the unified will of their governed masses against a common enemy. In simpler words, a sense of marginalization is induced amongst the masses to fight against the current system that marginalizes them, thus warranting autocratic governance. Iraqi politics following the collapse of the Hashemite Kingdom has been for long enough dominated by populist slogans. Be it the cultivation of sectarian divide, pitching the Shia majority against the ‘marginalization’ by former Sunni dictators, or be it the socialist slogans by the former Sunni leaders against the ‘marginalization’ of the vulnerable classes by leaders preceding them, the political tide is always the same. However, the epitome of populist success is undisputedly marked as the era of the Baathist regime led by Saddam.

Saddam’s influence on the Pakistani masses is of a very complicated nature. Although the Saddam government, repeatedly showed hostility to Pakistan from supporting the insurgency in Baluchistan to granting unconditional support to India over the Kashmir crisis, he is seen as a hero by many. To understand this mindset, it is important to know that the Sunni majority of Pakistan has an unwavering sense of fidelity for the Arabs. This is because many Pakistanis believe that their conversion to Islam is owed to the Arabs and thus service to the ‘original’ Muslims is a religious duty. The memory of the Indian subcontinent’s colonization by the British is a wound that is still fresh and thus any form of western imperialism against the Muslim ‘brethren’ is intolerable. Conceivably then, Saddam’s resistance against the American invasion combined with his status as an Arab leader turned him into a symbol of Muslim resistance for many in Pakistan. My first introduction to Saddam’s political reality was upon his execution when I found my uncle lamenting the ‘martyrdom’ of a hero who had resisted foreign invasion. The following day in the third grade, school began with an emotional presentation from a friend on how the ‘great leader’ stood tall in the face of death and became an inspiration for us young students to look up to. As for what the labor class believed, he was executed because he wanted to uplift the economically vulnerable.

On the other hand, the Shia minority of Pakistan has for long been under the influence of the clerical regime of Iran and the Marja of Iraq. To put it into perspective, Ayatollah Khamenei followed by Ayatollah Sistani are the most influential contemporary figures for Shia Islam in Pakistan. Thus the Pakistani Shia opinion on Saddam was no different than that of an Iraqi Shia. Only recently did I discuss this topic with an acquaintance from Iraq, also belonging to a Shia family when she noted how Saddam’s execution was a celebration for most. According to her views, Saddam was an American trained oppressor that had been sent to thrust Iraq into ruins and was executed only when he disobeyed the masters that held his leash. This perspective, also held by the Shia populace of Pakistan was a completely opposite conceptualization than that of the Sunnis and led to fierce polarization in the Pakistani society on more than one occasion.

A security high alert was enforced throughout the country during the Iran-Iraq war to curb the potential sectarian clashes that could result from Pakistan siding with either regime and causing a reaction from the opposing sect. Though not violent, this polarization culminated upon Saddam’s execution when contrasting sentimental value was attached to that occasion by each sect.

Iraq and Pakistan while apparently disconnected to each other have much more in common than normally speculated. From sectarian and ethnic divide, terrorism, economic turmoil, and corrupt ruling elites, both countries share a similar political landscape. It is then only inevitable that the politicians in each country exploit the vacuum by polarizing society to attain political gains. Populism is the key principle that drives this sectarian and divisional war of rhetoric. In the case of Saddam, it became an ideologue so persuasive that its impact extended beyond the Iraqi borders.

As I’ve always understood, populist appeal and the emotional value attached to it is that of an aspiring romantic. Just as the enthusiast ignores the flaws of his beloved for one appealing trait, the followers of the populist ignore all the flaws of their leader for that one resonating slogan. This sentimental value in politics is what normalizes autocracy and cultic behavior thereby driving society to a state marked by dangerous and potentially violent disruption.

The writer, Muhammad Hunain Khan, is an alumnus of the prestigious Aitchison College, located in Lahore, Pakistan. He is currently pursuing his bachelor’s at York University, Canada and writes on topics pertaining to current affairs, politics and history.

He tweets at @Khan_Bahadur

(Photo credit: Karim Mohsen | Newsmakers).