'Strong Centralized Government\r'

'There is no interrogative sentence that Iraq needs a sozzled centralize government. This assertion is establish on the side by side(p) factors: 1) the rise of melodic theme Islam, 2) the heterogeneity of the Iraki tribe (ethnic stems), and 3) resistance to the growing phenomenon of ‘hollowing of the soil. ’ It whitethorn be misleading to assume that the humanity of these factors would necessarily lead to the establishment of a strong centralized government. But in Iraq, this is the case.The rise of ancestor Islam engulfed the political sympathies of Moslem countries in the Middle East. Muslim extremists apply the name of Islam to destroy the basic institutions of health, education, and public assistance; replacing them with institutions that outrightly promote policy-making anarchy, genial stratification, and international terrorism. Iraq was satisfactory to resist the waves of radical Islam because of its exceedingly centralized government. The gove rnment’s grip on the local population prevented dissidents from fully articulating their radical ideology.According to Huntington, the suppression of radical Islam can only be achieved with and by means of the establishment of strong authoritarian institutions; institutions which overtly rejects the fallacies of Islamic extremism (Huntington, 429). Huntington held that Islamic extremism is, in general, a stumbling block to self-determination and development (Huntington, 431). Iraq’s fight with Iran simply illustrates the former’s need to defend itself from the waves of radical Islam. Kuznetsov argued that the Iraq-Iran war was a contest between Jewish-Orthodox Islam and radical Islam (Kuznetsov, 219).This was non the case. Iran’s dreaming to dominate the Middle East was based on two factors: the need to disperse radical Islam, and security. Iraq successfully contained the Iranian brat because of the authoritarian nature of the Iraqi government. Ef ficiency, effectiveness, and atrociousness were the main qualities that enabled Iraq to resist Iran. Glazer and Moynihan argued, â€Å"Whenever a democracy has a large subjugate of ethnic groups, it is likely to fall into political anarchy” (Glazer and Moynihan, 374).This statement makes sense. In some democratic countries with heterogeneous populations, there is the changeless threat of civil war and political instability. This is obvious. heathen groups vie for power through the electoral system to control early(a) ethnic groups (as in the case of Yugoslavia). Ethnic groups who lost in elections had no filling but to confront the dominant group through armed struggle. In communistic and authoritarian states, this was not possible.Communist and authoritarian states do by ethnicity as a factor of solidarity. Iraq was able to contain its heterogeneous population through systematic government control on all aspects of the society. Political instability could not exist because the government served as the unify factor of the country. The establishment of a strong central government in Iraq may be regarded as a note to ensure the dignity and integrity of the state. Today, the phenomenon of ‘hollowing of the state’ is apparent in many democracies.This phenomenon is characterized by the weakening of the state as an institution, minify economic sovereignty, and group power politics (Toynbee, 728). Only a strong and highly centralized government could effectively keep open the power and sovereignty of the state. Works Cited Glazer, N and D. P. Moynihan. Race and Ethnicity. American Sociological Review, 43(17), Oct. 2001. Huntington, Samuel. The wreck of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order. New York: Macmillan publication Company. Toynbee, Arnold. A History of the World. capital of the United Kingdom: London Publishing House, 1975.\r\n'