1.4

      Preparations for the Congress were therefore not confined to Iraqi communists. Efforts were exerted, based on an understanding of the importance of consolidating the policy of "Democracy and Renewal”, launched by the party’s 5th National Conference in 1993, to make it a national event dear to the heart of anyone concerned for the cause of the Iraqi people and the rebuilding of their homeland on the foundations of freedom, democracy, social justice and human rights. Conferences and enlarged meetings were held, with the participation of thousands of party members and cadres, to elect their representatives and Congress delegates. This process involved conducting elections in all party organizations, thus contributing to deepening democratic practice in its internal life. For the first time after long years of underground activity it was truly a rich and rewarding experience.
      At the opening of the Congress delegates elected its commissions to administer four workshops to discuss the Political Report, the draft party Program and Inner Norms, and the Intellectual Document, in addition to other reports dealing with organizational work, administration and finance. Delegates were then involved over three days in discussions that were marked by a sense of responsibility and conducted in a transparent manner with free discussion and democratic debate.
      War and foreign invasion was not the proper and effective way to depose the dictatorship. The war has had grave consequences for the situation in the country and people's lives and for building democracy and the country‘s reconstruction. Iraqi Communists were therefore correct when they stood against the war, while rejecting the dictatorship and striving to overthrow it. The slogan "No to war...No to dictatorship" correctly summarized the position of the party. It considered that the right path leading to building a unified democratic federal Iraq was by toppling dictatorship through the unity of patriotic forces in a broad alliance, based on a clear program to mobilize the people, enjoying legitimate international support in accordance with the UN Charter.
      From the moment the dictatorship ended, our Party has sought to unite our people’s forces and its patriotic energies to regain our sovereignty and the independence of our country, through an integrated range of measures and means of struggle. In the forefront was the call for a national conference giving rise to a national unity government. This was to provide leadership to remove the legacy of the past and re-build Iraq according to the interests of its people and on a democratic basis. But occupation based on UN Security Council Resolution No. 1483 (May 2003) and the formation of the occupation authority (CPA) prevented the Iraqis from running their own affairs in accordance with their national interests. That was the beginning - despite all political and legal changes – of a political process that has been responsible for thousands of crimes and errors which our people paid for with blood and material devastation that has not stopped till this day.
      Fortunately, the job of building democracy in Iraq, although difficult, may not be quite as hard as many critics of the war have warned. Iraq today possesses several features that will facilitate the reconstruction effort. Despite Saddam's long repression, democratic institutions are not entirely alien to the country. Under the Hashemite monarchy, which ruled from 1921 until 1958, Iraq adopted a parliamentary system modeled on that of its colonial master, the United Kingdom. Political parties existed, even in the opposition, and dissent and disagreement were generally tolerated. Debates in parliament were often vigorous, and legislators were usually allowed to argue and vote against the government without fear of retribution. Although the palace and the cabinet set the agenda, parliament often managed to influence policy. And this pluralism extended to Iraq's press: prior to the 1958 revolution that toppled the monarchy, 23 independent newspapers were published in Baghdad, Mosul, and Basra alone.

Blog 1.2

       Although Thomas Jefferson was in France serving as United States minister when the Federal Constitution was written in 1787, he was able to influence the development of the federal government through his correspondence. Later his actions as the first secretary of state, vice president, leader of the first political opposition party, and third president of the United States were crucial in shaping the look of the nation's capital and defining the powers of the Constitution and the nature of the emerging republic.
      "While Mr. Jefferson was at the seat of his brother-in-law, Mr. Epps, at Eppington, on his way from Norfolk to Monticello, he received the following letters from General Washington, tendering him to the appointment of Secretary of State; the second being accompanied by a commission for that office:"(pg. 554, Henry Stephens Randall) This section shows Thomas Jeffersons importance by him becoming the very first Secretary of State.
       Jefferson played a major role in the planning, design, and construction of a national capitol and the federal district. In the various public offices he held, Jefferson sought to establish a federal government of limited powers. In the 1800 presidential election, Jefferson and Aaron Burr deadlocked, creating a constitutional crisis. However, once Jefferson received sufficient votes in the electoral college, he and the defeated incumbent, John Adams, established the principle that power would be passed peacefully from losers to victors in presidential elections. Jefferson called his election triumph "the second American Revolution."
       While president, Jefferson's principles were tested in many ways. For example, in order to purchase the Louisiana Territory from France he was willing to expand his narrow interpretation of the Constitution. But Jefferson stood firm in ending the importation of slaves and maintaining his view of the separation of church and state. In the end, Jefferson completed two full and eventful terms as president. He also paved the way for James Madison and James Monroe, his political protégés, to succeed him in the presidency.
       "He says “that at the formation of our government, many had formed their opinions on European writings and practices, believing the experience of old countries, and especially of England, abusive at it was, to be a safer guide than mere theory."(pg.453, George Tucker)

1.Henry Stephens Randall; Da Capo Press, 1858

2. George Tucker; Carey, Lea & Blanchard, 1837

America Democracy

      “Both the initiative and referendum are illustration of direct legislation, that is, legislation by the citizens themselves rather than by their elected representatives. It is a Modern attempt to return to pure, rather than representative, democracy." (pg 102, Henry Reed Burch)
      This passage brings up the two ideas of democracy, pure and representitve. Pure, or direct, democracy is were every single person votes on ever single thing. You can see how this would be bad almost everyday people whould have to take off work to go vote. Representative, or indirect, democracy is were people vote on representivites who make the decisions for us.
      Representative Democracy in America: Voices of the People is a national project designed to reinvigorate and educate Americans on the critical relationship between government and the people it serves. The project introduces citizens, particularly young people, to the representatives, institutions, and processes that serve to realize the goal of a government of, by, and for the people.
      The word "democracy," as well as the concept it represents, can be traced back to the area surrounding the Mediterranean Sea. The beginnings of democracy can be credited to the Greeks of the sixth century BC. The word comes from two Greek words: demos, meaning "the people," and kratein, meaning "to rule." These two words are joined together to form democracy, literally meaning "rule by the people". The Greek system of government was perhaps closer to a true democracy or rule by the people than any other in history. The Greeks viewed dictatorship as the worst possible form of government, so their government evolved as the exact opposite. Their civilization was broken down into small city-states, and all the men voted on all issues of government. There were no representatives in the Greek system of government. Instead, they ruled themselves directly; each man was a life long member of the decision making body. This was almost a total democracy except for the fact that women and slaves were not considered citizens and were not allowed to vote. Despite this, no other civilization has come as close to democracy as its creators, the Greeks, and many later civilizations have incorporated this Greek idea as part of the foundation for their government.
      In America, none of our federal laws and few of our state laws are decided by popular vote. We vote mainly to select representatives who cast the actual votes when a law is up for consideration. We also vote to select the president who, along with those legislators, appoint
judges whose job it is to interpret our existing laws and settle any disagreements as to what they really mean and how they will be carried out. So if the majority of the people in my state, for example, elect a representative or a president whose views are contrary to mine, I might
not have much of a say in which laws are passed, nor in how they are interpreted or enforced.
      “But suppose the people as a whole insist that the sovereignty, or supreme power, shall remain in their hands. Then they have established a democracy. If the people themselves determine policies of law and administration directly, their government is a pure democracy. If the people elect officers to make laws and administer the government, it is a representative democracy or a republic. With so large a body of people who have the right to vote as we have in the United States today, direct government is out of the question. Possibly the whole people could vote directly on big matter of policy-they do so in Switzerland and elsewhere-but it is upon representatives democracies that the responsibility of ruling the world rests today.” (pg 425, Ray Osgood Hughes)

1. Henry Reed Burch, Samuel Howard Patterson; Macmillan, 1922.

2. Ray Osgood Hughes; Allyn and Bacon, 1922.