And because it is the second time, this implies that the first was neither a lasting nor genuine independence. It wasn’t even a good independence; that is why we needed a second one.

This, apparently, is the track record of independence, any independence. And who knows, a third might be required, for this independence will not necessarily be lasting, genuine and good independence, either.

However, the important thing about the latest independence is that it was not emotive like the one wrested in the decolonisation era. It was not like the independence of India or Algeria; people did not take to the streets dancing, singing and cheering. They waved no flags or banners and did not exchange congratulations. They remained at home fearing their newest independence would be sealed in blood and violence whereas the independence they had won in that earlier “era” of independence signalled an end to violence and bloodletting, ushering peace and prosperity.

There was a time when independence was the culmination of people’s struggle. Our new one is part of a political game involving a powerless people. Events affecting our lives are instigated by external actors, and we are confined to a back seat: first dictatorship, then deliverance from dictatorship, followed by occupation and crowned with…independence.

The people are the object and context. We provide legitimacy and credibility without doing anything or demanding anything. We had no say in dictatorship, occupation and even in our independence, not because we do not believe in independence but because we are not used to being active and demanding.

The most Iraqis can hope for is that our so-called independence and sovereignty may hold out the prospect of ending our torment and insecurity.

In this political tragedy the Iraqi people have no romanticism. That is why “independence” was met with lukewarm reception if not indifference, as was the sovereignty that came with it. The latter, as broadcast on TV, was nothing more than a folder of papers handed over by the occupier to one of the natives, with smiles thrown in for the cameras and a show of good hearted warmth between the occupier and the native.

The politicians, in contrast to a majority of the people, would like to restore to those terms “independence” and “sovereignty” the passionate connotation they once had in the era of national liberation and homemade revolutions. It is not because they identify with the ideological forces of that time. Rather, they want to turn a cold and dull political game into a (politicised) emotive event. The “day of independence”, in their thinking, is a “historical day for the great Iraq” and sovereignty a “safeguard against the machinations hatched by an aberrant minority to undermine beloved Iraq”.

These politicians have not cured themselves of this now artificial discourse. They don’t seem to realise that “independence”, “national sovereignty” and “national liberation” have in practice become conceptual prisons for the people who have for so long cherished these ideals only to be rewarded in reality with dictatorship, religious militancy and obsession with cultural specificity.

More important, these politicians want to place the emotive dimension of “independence” and “sovereignty” into the context of a seriously flawed equation: that sovereignty equals the key to resolving the security problem in Iraq.

But wielding sovereignty in the face of insecurity does not seem to be a logical response because there is hardly a causal and determinate relationship between “sovereignty” as a political notion and psychological state of mind – or even a practical exercise – on the one hand and the security situation on the other.

It may be argued that the current violence – in the name of resistance or jihad – is essentially a consequence of occupation. Putting an end to occupation, winning back independence and regaining sovereignty, will therefore pull the rug from under the perpetrators. But because they have not been involved in it, it will be extremely difficult to convince people that the whole thing is not a charade. And that the so-called independence will simply reproduce occupation under the new guise, and sovereignty will indeed be only a worthless piece of paper.

An explosive mix

The greatest danger will be if independence and sovereignty are used as a sedative to evade radical treatment for Iraq’s real problems which are the root cause of violence. These problems include the warped balance of forces between the various Iraqi groups and their disproportionate political representation; conditions conducive to acceptance and even sympathy by some Iraqis towards foreign insurgents; politicised unemployment; hegemonic impulses driving some Iraqi groups themselves and resistance against such tendencies.

Nevertheless, before there is any serious attempt to deal with these problems, why not let us give three cheers to sovereignty and independence. Let us be nostalgic for the good old days of national liberation and homespun revolutions. Let us recite Paul Eluard’s ode to Liberty. Let us sing for the homeland and its past glories.

Let us hail sovereignty and independence with our words, national songs and tongue, with zeal, with a throaty voice, with ink…Let us rejoice at the new revolution. Let us bask in the euphoria of victory on paper…only on paper.

After all, sovereignty and independence were nothing but a paper handed over by the occupier to one of the natives with smiles for the cameras and a warm handshake between the two.