In a dictatorship it is quite simply the opposite . Even though elections for parliament were held every four to seven years, whilst Hussein was in presidency of Iraq, the parliamentary weren’t to be considered free and fair (^) as only members of Hussein’s Baath community, or better known as his ‘Dirty Dozen’, were ever elected into parliament. Thus being, as for a parliament to be representative, the people need to be essentially responsible for who is in parliament representing them. Hussein’s Baath colleagues were always elected as his schemes needed the ‘dirty dozen’. All the deportations, the organized disappearances, murders, rapes, tortures, all of these cruel and inhumane methods were conducted by his sons, brothers and cousins. If the people actually had a say in who was in parliament then his methods would hopefully have been null and …show more content…
However under Hussein’s rule, the judicial system was completely under his control, with him and his associates directing judges to serve their interests for “the best of the government” (sarcasm). The judicial system essentially did the same job as it would in a democratic government, although in a democracy, the judiciary is an independent branch. Under his rule – or more broadly, all dictatorships – the judicial system and legal system is controlled through bribery and other sequences of power. Also, sentencing in Iraq was different. In Hussein’s Iraq as he was a militant president, his military and the secret police (the Mukhabarat) enforced the law through these groups assassinating, hanging, deporting, raping and torturing the criminals and/or the criminal’s family, rather than being given a sentence. Also note that torturing’s could and would be held for days on