Compensating Hamid Ad-Din family [Archives:2005/897/Opinion]

November 24 2005

The compensation for properties forcibly taken under the name of the public interest (the construction of schools and hospitals and the building of roads) is one of the rights of equal citizenship, and an application of justice. There are international laws for protecting private properties from arbitrary extortion and nationalization in conformity with laws that were issued after the emergence of the Soviet State in Russia and newly independent states that got rid of occupation.

There are numerous barriers facing the compensation of royalist families at the global extent, as the legislation of republican revolutions is still in place. If we had a look at some experiences in different types we will realize that compensations can not identical of the same type in all cases.

The first experience was in the Republic of France whose revolution broke out 3 centuries ago. The revolutionaries conflicted with the monarchy. In the time and place contexts, there was nothing called revolution, but there is a history and there is a republic in France. The French people live under the umbrella of equality, justice and freedom, and Republic of France never thought of compensating the royalists.

The second of these experiences took place in Spain which became a republic under the dictator ruler Franco, but the royal system in Spain was converted into the form of constitutional monarchy. Due to closeness between governance, monarchy, this country jumped to a democratic oasis, and since then the monarch can own but it can not rule.

The third experience was remarked in Russia and its sisters. These republics did not pay attention to monarchy or the royal families, and the heir of the Bulgarian throne was an ordinary citizen who returned home, formed a political party and won the parliamentary elections. He then formatted his government but did take part in the following elections, and this characteristic did not motivate him to raise the issue of compensations.

In Afghanistan, the monarch returned to pardon Hamid Karzia under the flag of the Republic of Afghanistan and the issue of compensation never had an influence on the Afghan political process. In his electoral propaganda, Karzia did not give any indication to the Republic's forgiving the Afghan monarch who lives in dignity in his country.

In Iraq, Ali Bin al-Hussein lifted the flag of royal Iraq for the first time after 55 years on post of the palace in which he had been living. Ali Bin Hussein is the sponsor of the constitutional monarchy via a public referendum. Such existence of the sons of monarchs who ruled Iraq had not faced any economic thought as what happened in July 14th, 1958. the republicans assembled near the palace claiming for approving the 14th of July a national day for Iraq. What has Yemen learned from such experiences?

I think the general lessons can be found in the provision of equal citizenship, justice and freedom for every one. People of the royal age who lost everything and took refuge in other countries are aware of these values.

The private lesson is meant for the current rulers and their sons and the situation will remain if they continued to hide the facts. The questions were raised after the address of the Makarim on forgiving and compensation from the point of view of the legitimacy of the address, which was no based on a friendly historical background.

The culture and the address of hatred have been spanning since 1962 and is still going on until reaching the fact that there is no place for the corpses of Al Hamid ad-Din Family to be laid. In other words, the system of the current governance does not allow corpses to enter Yemen. So it is known that the leaders of the 26 September Revolution do not forgive the family of Ali Hamid ad-Din and those who back them. Bloody battles against the family of Hamid ad-Din continued up until 1970, the year of equation between the Saudi government and the government of Sana'a with the radical condition that Hamid ad-Din family must not be allowed to return to Yemen.

The presidential addresses have lost their objectivity, as one can realize that any presidential address focuses on the matrix of accusations against leaders of the Yemeni Specialist Party. The presidential address is possible to fall down to the square of instigation and hatred which locals in Sana'a including grandchildren of Al-Hamid ad-Din used to hear.

The matter is very important, not for en ethnical or electoral domain, but because the family of Hamid ad-Din lacks the rights of citizenship. This dynasty possessed numerous properties and they are capable to buy a property, which is three times as big as Sana'a. So, they are in need of a national identity to be equal to others.