The trial and execution of Saddam Husein is not just a mere passing event in the political history of Iraq. A moment of defiance at the gallows turned Saddam in the eyes of the Arab masses from a despot to a hero. Thirty years of atrocities have been expunged by a five minutes video. These evanescent moments are loaded with symbolic significance for the Arab nation, which I will try to unravel here. This article is not about the merits or demerits of Saddam, for I really do not care much about the guy. This is about people’s reaction to what happened to him, it is an attempt to interpret this reaction. I have no doubt in my mind that one less tyrant would make our world less miserable. But still, I also think that his death would have been much more meaningful had it been the Iraqis themselves who toppled him and tried him instead of some foreign power seeking to protect and promote its own self-interest while pretending to defend the interests of the Iraqis. This is what makes the feelings of many people about this happening rather murky and hard to sort out. The whole situation is getting to be, as the Arab saying goes, like a razor stuck in your throat, you could neither swallow it nor get it out. It hurts either way. Piling Pelion upon Ossa, the timing of the execution was the yeast that fermented such conflicting, ambivalent feelings.

The farcical scene of his execution gives the impression that the whole trial of Saddam was a sham. The way it was handled gave rise to all sorts of rumors and wild speculations. People began to wonder whether it was justice done or vengeance meted out. Another theory says that the way the execution was conducted was meant to stir sectarian dissension between sunnah and shi’ah in Iraq, and perhaps in the whole Middle East. Then, one would wonder who gained the most by this, USA and Israel or Iran, the avowed enemy of the two? No one would accept the American claim that the whole affair was in the hands of the Iraqi government. After all, the man was in the custody of the Americans and he was handed to the Iraqis only few hours, if not minutes, before the execution. If the American government, as it claims, is really concerned about the stability of Iraq, why would they undertake such a miscalculated move! Even the Kuwaitis whose country was invaded by Saddam and practically destroyed by him could not swallow the scene. Only Iran was pleased. Could it be that the USA was trying to please Iran? Impossible. The general impression is that the USA is trying to widen the divisions between the various factions in Iraq and in the Muslim world and foment hostilities between sunnah and shi’ah. Perhaps this is just a phase in the implementation of the American policy dubbed the “creative chaos”, which we have been hearing so much of lately.

Another side to the trial of Saddam is his execution before finishing the job of sorting out all his crimes. It is true that the Iraqi constitution provides that if a person was suspected of several crimes and in one of them he was convicted and was given the death sentence, he could be executed without regard for the remaining crimes. But here we are not dealing with your common street criminal. We are dealing with the head of a state whose trial is of immense historical significance. For examples, many mysteries could be unraveled regarding Saddam’s war with Iran and his invasion of Kuwait and the involvement of other powers and other persons in these momentous events. Then, what about oil for food scandal? Saddam could not embark on such major and costly undertakings without coordinating with some key players in the international scene. This gave some people the impression that perhaps the USA intentionally wanted to burry Saddam and bury with him such secrets, which, if revealed would expose the involvement of the USA.

Up to now I have been discussing surmises and suspicions. Now, I will turn to analyze raw feelings, which reflect the cultural values and psychological make-up of the Arab masses. The first thing that comes to mind is the unfortunate realization that the tension between sunnah and shi’ah is real and deep seated. It lays dormant waiting for the slightest incident to ignite it. The hanging of Saddam could be such an incident. It looks as if the region is on the verge of a religious war reminiscent of that which ravished Europe at the close of the middle ages. Religious wars could reek havoc at national boundaries and the concept of the national state, because sectarian allegiance would override national identity. Religious tension threatens to retard the secularization process in the Middle East and halt any attempt to separate state from church. A religious war could be extended for decades of discord and disaster, which could eventually lead to shifting and realignment of the region’s state boundaries.

On the other hand, the Muslims in general, and the Arabs in particular, feel cheated out of their proper role and place in the modern world. They cannot get over their glorious past. They feel that their history of late is turning into an endless series of oppressions, defeats and humiliation, first by Othman Turks, then by the colonial Western powers and worst of all by Israel. This sense of frustration and bent-up anger, this impression of gross injustice flare up at any perceived encroachment on their national pride. Tyrants, since the ancient times of city-states in Greece, knew how to play on such feelings and manipulate the masses. For the Arab masses, the defiant stand of Saddam at the gallows reflects their own deep-seated wish to defy their persecutors, which include not only the USA and Israel, but also their own governments as well. It gives them hope of rejuvenating their impotence and of regaining their vitality and their ability to take their destiny in their own hands. Whatever the reason or circumstance, any sign of strength and defiance would look refreshing and appealing amidst all the symptoms of weakness of the Arab World.

This bleak history has tinted the Arab mass culture turning it into a culture of dueling, not debate. Centuries of oppression by outside powers have engendered the perception that only through strength and courage can one maintain his dignity and defend his rights. Rights are won by physical strength, by the sword, not by intellectual argumentation. This confrontational attitude does not leave much room for cultural dialogue, or toleration of other points of view. The challenge becomes not how to attain a cultural renaissance and intellectual enlightenment to catch up with the rest of the world, but how to muster your strength and join your forces to win the battle with your enemies. Every one should join the ranks and line up behind the leader who would lead to victory. No deviation is allowed. Such is the environment, which breeds despots and tyrants. The people pin their hopes on them to lead them and deliver them from their plight. It is a quick fix. But, alas, quick fixes never work. The real remedy is to start a serious self examination and a serious dialogue, for surely this is not the time to fight, now really is the time that Arabs begin to talk amongst themselves and with the rest of the world'.