Sagepaper

During and following revolutions, peaceful or otherwise, there is usually a big question mark hanging over the heads of members of the former ruling party. This has been a very sticky situation for Rwanda. Earlier, we faced the problem of which ex-Nazi's to keep, and which to execute.

Typically, the debate has been solved by a cut-off at some level of bureaucracy. Above the line, employees are considered to have been willing criminals. Below the line, people are considered to have been innocent employees making a living. Sometimes, there is a gray zone in which each former party member is evaluated individually.

The Sunni's in Iraq are correct in their predictions of what would happen to Iraq if former Baathists are excluded from government. This would not be your average brain-drain; it would be a decapitation. Who would you rather have at the desk in a public library: a knowledgeable, trained former Baathist, or a Shiite with his heart in the right place, but not his books? What about infrastructure? Will you deny a former Baathist electrical worker employment for which he is trained, and whose skills are needed? Or will you let Shiites and Kurds learn the hard way by getting electrocuted trying to maintain the power grid?

Exclusion of all former Baathists is an injustice to many trained and educated, harmless, citizens. Even more seriously, it would be a blow to the nation's human resources which could cripple Iraq for a few generations. There is a problem, however, with keeping Baathists around.

This situation is like many post-colonial self-governance situations. An ethnic minority was in power, behaved ruthlessly, and is now in the hands of a wrathful majority. I do not know how Baathists behaved. In some post-colonial dictatorships, the ruling minority individually degraded and harmed those "under" them.

I think it would be unacceptably tedious to try to determine the "guilt" of each former Baathist. A background check for everyone seeking government employment would be nice, but the records will not be a reliable indicator of character and conduct. I think what they need is a set of stringent laws which will satisfy the Kurds and Shiites -- as applied to them as well -- to prevent abuse of power in government. Then, cull Saddam and the people with whom he ate dinner, and a few other known monsters. After that, give a general amnesty. You could even make it a limited amnesty -- everyone except murderers or torcherers.

They will find who needs to be fired fairly quickly that way. The alternative is to take a decade or two deciding who to rehire and who to sentence for crimes. The Arusha trials of Rwandans are an example. The decade or two might be nice for Iraqis, but that is too long for them to cling to our apron strings.

In Rwanda, the situation was very different. The detested ruling minority went into exile, and that lasted long enough for there to be a diaspora. When the Tutsis regained power, many of the exiled returned, so they had a fairly good pool of human resources with which to rebuild.

In Iraq, the liberated Shiites and Kurds cannot make it on their own. They must have the Sunnis. Otherwise, they will have to spend their oil money having foreign contractors come in and do things for them. After this many years of various wars and sanctions, the oil money is needed for higher priority projects.