No, not at all. The size and scope of Saddam’s
dictatorship , and the complete disregard he had for the lives of his subjects, would cut him out of the running for “ideal tribal leader” I’m afraid.
What I had in mind was the kind of social organization, perhaps with some modification, that they had prior to the rearrangement of the ME after WWII. For example, in a
tribe there is normally a common line of descent that serves as an unbreakable bond (a bond of blood so to speak), as well as a series of common beliefs, etc. If the government took the form of an allegience of families of some sort it may work.
Anyway, though the allied tribe model is far different from Saddam’s tyrannical state, the concepts of hereditary succession and negligible government would be completely foreign to those who would actually make any decisions, so even if it were the best option, it would still be shunned as archaic and regressive. But then again, regression is the whole point that I’m trying to make I suppose. Let the people live in the most stable societal structure possible… which I would imagine as small family oriented governmental units (the less there is to break down the less often it will… like a deisel engine), independant in the day-to-day operations and unified in such things as defense, infrastructure, and possibly international affairs.
Perhaps is would be better to let them hash it out on their own with a new democratic system. I just have my doubts as to whether that will last long, especially since they have no experience with democracy historically (I am correct on that one, right? I can’t remember a democratic era before present times).
Just a thought…
God bless,
Agricola
