The real patriotic

War in Iraq recently gives us a chance to revise again the true meaning of patriotic. We can see many of Iraq people give support to American Army and his coalition at the fall of Saddam Hussein. Many of us have a question in our mind are there any more patriotism in Iraqis’ heart. If they are a patriotic, why they easily give their support to the invasion army.

To answer this question we must look patriotic with a broad-minded and don’t narrow down its meaning. We can not say loyalty to a leader at whatever his behaviour is considered as patriotic.


I prefer patriotic should be defined as possession attitude to work or to struggle for the good for country. I think a patriotic citizen always want a best leader to lead his country. Contrast to that only a non patriotic wants his country governs by bad leader.


For the best example look at football match, the main purpose to held football match not to be a champion or winner in the match but more than that we want to improve the quality in playing football. Better you play football more you get chance to win a match. Indirectly the football match as a tool in maintaining football games always at high quality or the best. Only the quality game will attract people to buy a ticket to see the game.


What happen if the result of the football game can be determined by bad elements such as graft (bribe) or by black magic, surely it will effect the quality of the game where playing good is no longer as a main factor to win the game.


That is a nature if supporters in the field is divided into two groups since there are two football teams playing there. That not means the supporters is enemy to each other, and a sporting supporter always accept the win or the loose of their football team. Because they always understand the main purpose of the match as mention earlier.


The dissatisfied supporters may be of the way how the game is handled. For example the bias referee can cause dissatisfaction from the supporters and the players. There is not an impossible for the bad team can defeat the better team consequences of the bias referee. Another example is the imbalance or unfair regulation of the game, let say the opposing team only counted as one goal point if they could score 10 goals. Surely by this unfair regulation to win in such game become almost impossible.


If those unhealthy practice existing in the football game them lastly will destroy the quality and the future of the game. Here the true football fans always hoping come an action to be taken to safe the future of the football. They don’t care from where and who to take the action, to them the main issue here is to safe the future of football.


This analogy can also be applied to patriotism. Opposition party include in Iraq always be marked as not or less patriotic. This is a normal practice in democratic countries to have various politic parties or opposition. Where people are allowed to choose the best leader to lead their country. The main goal of democratic system is to ensure bad leader always can be replaced by the good one without using force or going into war.


Normally with the healthy democratic system, all the supporters of parties involved in a poll will accept either their party won or lost. If their party lost that means there is a leader come from the won party is a better leader to lead their country. So they are not worried about their party had lost, because the most important issue is they got a best leader.


Unfortunately some leaders when took power they don’t want to step down even though they is no longer good enough to lead their country. To avoid lose in general election they introduce some ‘strange’ regulations to their opponent parties in order to guarantee they will always win in any election. They have restricted freedom of speech, limit the media of opposition parties, and radio and TV are only for the party who govern the country. Despite those such actions infact are not allowed in the democratic system.


They can do those things by claims they are practissng democracy by their own way, not as American’s or British’s ways. We also agree with the claims. Nothing is perfect in this world nor democracy. Everything in this world will experience changing as the time goes by, look at our foods, our dresss, our language, our music, those are change from time to time.


Should the way of democracy could be change to suit the local and time? The answer should be yes but the change must be consulted with the other parties or the change must be agreed by all parties involved in the elections. If the changes were agreed by all parties only then they will satisfy with the results of the election.


So what is the wrong when they claimed they are practising democracy by their own way? Actually what they are practising, they practice democracy by their party way. They never consult with other parties in making election regulations. Surely we can imagine who will win a football match if one team can be allowed to make the game regulation they like and impose it to the opponent team.


They are too powerful to defeated not because they are good enough but because they have power to make or to ensure ballot box results always bias to them. So that’s why the coming of American liberation soldiers to topple Saddam Hussein is always welcome by patriotic Iraqis for the sake of their country goodness. Not Iraqi love Saddam less but they love their country and democracy more.