IT'S ALWAYS THE ANSWER:

Is monarchy the answer in the Middle East?: Sholto Byrnes talks to Bernard Lewis, our greatest living expert on Islam, who says that what both Afghanistan and Iraq really need is a king (Sholto Byrnes, 30 June 2010, Spectator)

What about Afghanistan and Iraq: should we stay? ‘Having gone in, I think we have a duty to finish the job, cut and run is not a good policy. In both we should not stay longer than absolutely necessary, we should try to work out methods of handing over. You know,’ he continues, launching into one of the many anecdotes that pepper his conversation, ‘the Afghanistan I went to 40 years ago was known as the Switzerland of Asia. I heard it so many times that when I was on a plane from Kabul and an Afghan said it to me again, I pointed to my wristwatch and said, “when you can make one like that I’ll believe you.” He roared with laughter.’

It is the type of government that Afghanistan enjoyed under its monarchy that he believes could point to a form of democracy compatible with Islam. ‘There was some level of consultation and mutual respect. Democratic ideas, in the sense of limited authority, go back to classical Islam. When a new sultan was enthroned the crowds greeted him by saying, “sultan, do not be proud, God is greater than you.” His subjects, in effect, had rights. Sharia states quite clearly that if the ruler does something against the law he must not be obeyed and disobedience is justified. There wasn’t an electoral system, but there were very elaborate systems of consultation with tribal chiefs, field heads, merchant and craft guilds.’

Lewis contrasts this with the power of European monarchies at the time. He tells the story of the French ambassador to Istanbul in 1786, who had to explain his lack of progress in persuading the Ottomans to enact some military reforms. ‘Things here are not as they are in France, where the king is sole master,’ he wrote home. ‘The sultan has to consult.’

Returning to Iraq, I say it is hard to reconcile the cautious historian who warns against the dangers of premature democratisation with the bellicose neocon we are told urged the White House into battle. ‘I’m perplexed,’ I tell him. ‘I’m perplexed, too!’ he replies. ‘It’s a misrepresentation.’ People talked to him, he says — Cheney in particular — and sometimes they listened, sometimes not. In fact, he claims that invading Iraq was ‘not the idea’ at all. What he and his friend Ahmad Chalabi wanted was a declaration of support for the northern zone, which had operated out of Saddam’s reach since the first Gulf war. ‘It was practically independent and was really a very effective, functioning democracy. On two occasions at least they said they would like to proclaim an Independent Government of Free Iraq. They didn’t need military or financial support.’ Just a declaration from the US. ‘They asked the Clinton administration and the Bush administration, but they never got it. That’s what I and Chalabi were asking for.’

Did he think this could have led to Saddam’s regime unravelling? ‘I’m sure it would. They were doing an excellent job and they had extensive support in the remainder of Iraq. It would have served as an example to other countries.’ One idea, favoured by Lewis, was for Prince Hassan of Jordan (the late King Hussein’s brother) to become Iraq’s king. He was a member of the same Hashemite family as the country’s former monarchs, and ‘a number of people thought the best prospect for democracy would have been a monarchy on British lines. Of the democracies that have been democracies for a long time and continue to be so, most are monarchies.’