Is there a common denominator between the “buried” Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the “hijacked” Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki?! Who is better at maintaining Iraq's security and domestic stability, and expanding its foreign relations? The answer to the first question is obviously linked to the extent of both men's doggedness on authority, with the only difference that Saddam used to say it bluntly and without any maneuvering, while Al-Maliki is trying to be smart about it and justify it with talk about a mutilated “democracy.” As for the answer to the second question, it may be that the Iraqis during Saddam Hussein's rule were afraid of being killed, tortured and imprisoned until death, based on his orders and by his men, his despotic government and tyrannical regime. However, he upheld security and was feared by the extremists, the sectarian and the armed men. Al-Maliki on the other hand – although more than four years have passed since he assumed the premiership – was unable to uphold security and collapsed on the arena of “instability.” Moreover, according to the Wikileaks documents, he was involved in the management of death and torture squads and disregarded the Iranian role in arming militias as part of a “hidden” war. It is clear that Iraq will not enjoy stability any time soon. This is especially true in light of Al-Maliki's obstinacy and the insistence of “sectarian” leaderships on placing the interests of regional states ahead of national concord and the interests of the people, but also in light of their refusal to distance themselves from frail agreements that will not mend the Iraqi situation. Whoever looks into the agreement recently signed by the Iraqi leaderships - after eight months of crises and political vacuum against the backdrop of the outcome of the last elections - can sense that this agreement is “frail” and based on reparations and the division of the authority, far from the wishes of the people and the interests of the state. This is due to the fact that it does not set the foundation for a clear mechanism that can achieve future stability and prevent the repetition of the political crisis. The agreement legitimized the pre-elections situation through the reappointment of Jalal al-Talabani as President of the Republic and Nouri al-Maliki as Prime Minister, and the creation of a new institution based on the proposal of American Vice President Joseph Biden without defining this new institution's prerogatives and tasks. Moreover, it is not even known whether it will be an executive one operating in parallel to the Cabinet or a constitutional one operating in parallel to parliament. What is known, however, is that it is called the Council for Strategic Policies and is headed by Iyad Allawi, the leader of the Iraqi List that won the elections and earned the parliament speaker's post. This means that the people who cast their choices in the ballot boxes will see another man who was not chosen by them heading the Cabinet, considering there will always be someone standing in the way of the democratic choice and excluding the winner from the presidency, the premiership or maybe even the speaker's post. It is no secret that there are Iraqi political forces accusing Nouri al-Maliki of sectarianism due to his “unclear” positions toward the violence that is invading the country. Moreover, the army whose formation he supervised is accused of being involved in crimes and torture operations – according to the Wikileaks documents. In the meantime, Al-Maliki is insisting on remaining in his post and rejecting all the initiatives, which confirms he is taking orders from other sides and is implementing agendas that do not serve Iraqi concord. This could cause the thwarting of political stability and the inauguration of a new Iraqi stage. Consequently, there is no difference between Saddam Hussein, who appointed himself as the “sole” leader of Iraq, and Al-Maliki, who is refusing to give up his post even if this is at the expense of Iraq's interests, stability and relations with its Arab surrounding. The corruption that is destroying the state from within, the oppression that is affecting many factions of society, the bad services, the weak performance of most of the sectors, the expansion of sectarianism and the deep disputes between those participating in the political process, all require a true national and democratic spirit that can allow the best to assume power and pave the way before the active Iraqi political leaderships that are able to secure Iraq's interests, security and stability in the face of the problems and challenges. This would prevent the country from becoming an arena for the conflict of the agendas that are serving Tehran and Washington and blocking the way before the Arab interest. The Iraqi street is weeping and the tears are not drying up. The pictures of corpses and dead people are continuously carried by the media outlets, while anarchy is prevailing over the Land of the Two Rivers and the operations of the terrorists are escalating after they found gaps and mistakes affecting Al-Maliki's government and facilitating the implementation of their “criminal” agendas and goals. So, do the deteriorating situation and the increase of the suffering of the Iraqis not deserve national concessions from Al-Maliki and his government, instead of him proving – through his insistence on remaining in power – that he wishes to repeat Saddam's experience and celebrate his bleak term?
