Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  IRAQ MONARCHY
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
In Iraq political life during the mandate came to revolve around a tripartite balance of power. One part consisted of the king, a foreign monarch (from al-Eijaz) dependent on the British for his position but anxious to develop a more permanent power base among the local politicians. Another part comprised the British, always fearful of a rebellious parliament and anxious to see their supporters in office as prime ministers and ministers of the interior. To this end they continued to insist on substantial tribal representation in parliament. Between these two elements was a shifting group of Arab sunni politicians, some more anti-British than the others, but all willing to assume office. Some were strong and capable personalities. Indeed, one feature of the period was political pluralism and sometimes intense competition for power at the top. Unused to political parties, the politicians formed parliamentary blocs, based mainly on personal ties and shifting political alliances. Few had roots in any large constituencies outside the halls of parliament, except for their links with tribal leaders. The failure to build broadly based political institutions or to reach out the groups beyond their personal or familial circles was a critical weakness of the nationalist movement. It allowed for manipulation by the British and the monarchy and it prevented any one group from establishing sufficient power to move the country along in a particular direction. The politicians focused almost exclusively on the treaty, and failed to develop programmes on the social issues, although economic issues came to be more important in the early 1930s.
EN
The Hāshimite claim to Arab leadership had been born almost haphazardly in the circumstances of the First World War. It was far from being accepted by all the Arabs and would always suffer from its sponsorship by Britain. But the total Ottoman collapse did give Britain and France a brief period in which they felt that they could act largely as they pleased. Inducing Arabs under the rule of the Ottoman Turks to rebel against their oppressors the British and French during the First World War convinced the Hāshimite clan that they would rule over the Arab Middle East. Later on, having been awarded by the League of Nations the mandates for the former Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire the victorious powers began to consider those territories as their colonies. Apart from the fighting in Syria, there were uprisings in Egypt, Iraq and Palestine, because the Arab hopes had been thwarted by the establishment of administrations on colonial lines with virtually no Arab participation. The Arab rebellions could be put down only at heavy costs. The post-war economy caused the British government to act. Winston Churchill as Colonial Secretary, with T. E. Lawrence as adviser, held a conference in Cairo in March 1921. No Arabs were present, but the meeting was attended by the high commissioners for Iraq, Egypt and Palestine. It was decided to carry out the arrangement already prepared in London to make Amīr Faysal King of Iraq. Churchill’s decision regarding Iraq was to have calamitous consequences as quite different communities – the Sunnī Muslim Arabs, Sunnī Muslim Kurds, and Shīcī Muslim Arabs – were put under a single ruler. Many people say, that Churchill’s decision of 1921 continue to cause terrible grief to Iraq’s indigenous people and anxiety to the rest of the world.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.