Saddam Hussein Before the Law

What is at stake in the trial of Saddam Hussein, which is set to begin on October 19? Coming just four days after the referendum on Iraq’s constitution and touted as a “constitutional moment” akin to the trials of Kings Charles X and Louis XVI, the proceedings are supposed to help advance Iraq’s transition from tyranny to democracy. Will they?

So far, all signs suggest that the trial is unlikely to meet its ambitious aims. From the outset in postwar Iraq, criminal justice resembled deracinated constitutionalism: atomistic trials, radical purges, and compromised elections. Most egregious was the post-invasion rush to “de-Ba’athification,” which eviscerated many of the country’s existing institutions.

The mix of individual and collective responsibility associated with repressive regimes often creates a dilemma concerning how to deal with the old institutions. But, in Iraq, flushing out the military and the police merely left the country in a domestic security vacuum. By the time that mistake was recognized, the damage was done, needlessly sacrificing security. Moreover, potential sources of legitimacy in Iraq’s ongoing constitutional reform, such as parliament, were also destroyed.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To read this article from our archive, please log in or register now. After entering your email, you'll have access to two free articles every month. For unlimited access to Project Syndicate, subscribe now.


By proceeding, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, which describes the personal data we collect and how we use it.

Log in;

Cookies and Privacy

We use cookies to improve your experience on our website. To find out more, read our updated cookie policy and privacy policy.