Is Democracy even the best idea for Iraq?

[Kelly the Dog]

I am really just posing a thesis, and not saying that it is not. This isn't a partisan rant or perspective. I don't know the answer myself, and surely it is better than the government that preceded it. Whether the question of whether the war was worth it is not the issue here. But here is my problem:

 

Iraqis, it seems to me, unlike Americans, think religion or heritage first. Americans, Britains, French, etc, think country first. Surely there are exceptions, but the vast majority of Iraqis it seems, think of themselves as Kurds or Shia or Sunni first, and Iraqi second. With a gun to their head, and it seems a lot of them have unfortunately had that experience, they would choose Kurd or Sunni or Shia over being an Iraqi. It is neither better or worse to think this way, but it seems that it is true, at least to me.

 

So perhaps a democracy of each Iraqi gets one vote is a terrible system for Iraq, because whoever is the majority cares more about their people as a whole than their country as a whole. So Kurds, for example, will never really have a fair shake or representation because they will always be outnumbered and outvoted and undervalued. It would be different if the general populace thought Iraqi first, because it could be like some of the minorities in the states. The blacks get some raw end of some deals due to prejudice, but they mostly get the same rights and opportunity even though they are the minority. But if Americans thought of themselves as white first and not Americans, then the laws passed and the candidates elected and the alleged equality for blacks would never ever be close to fair or just.

[meazza]

I am really just posing a thesis, and not saying that it is not. This isn't a partisan rant or perspective. I don't know the answer myself, and surely it is better than the government that preceded it. Whether the question of whether the war was worth it is not the issue here. But here is my problem:

 

Iraqis, it seems to me, unlike Americans, think religion or heritage first. Americans, Britains, French, etc, think country first. Surely there are exceptions, but the vast majority of Iraqis it seems, think of themselves as Kurds or Shia or Sunni first, and Iraqi second. With a gun to their head, and it seems a lot of them have unfortunately had that experience, they would choose Kurd or Sunni or Shia over being an Iraqi. It is neither better or worse to think this way, but it seems that it is true, at least to me.

 

So perhaps a democracy of each Iraqi gets one vote is a terrible system for Iraq, because whoever is the majority cares more about their people as a whole than their country as a whole. So Kurds, for example, will never really have a fair shake or representation because they will always be outnumbered and outvoted and undervalued. It would be different if the general populace thought Iraqi first, because it could be like some of the minorities in the states. The blacks get some raw end of some deals due to prejudice, but they mostly get the same rights and opportunity even though they are the minority. But if Americans thought of themselves as white first and not Americans, then the laws passed and the candidates elected and the alleged equality for blacks would never ever be close to fair or just.

538537[/snapback]

 

Perhaps this mentality could be changed. If these people have never really been introduced to the concept of democracy and the rights of the individuals, by introducing them to democracy, eventually they might start thinking differently.

 

This is a difficult task as most of these people were born knowning only to fight for their religion but with a lot of work, that mentality could change.

[Kelly the Dog]

Perhaps this mentality could be changed.  If these people have never really been introduced to the concept of democracy and the rights of the individuals, by introducing them to democracy, eventually they might start thinking differently. 

 

This is a difficult task as most of these people were born knowning only to fight for their religion but with a lot of work, that mentality could change.

538550[/snapback]

That's a damn decent point. I am not sure, however, that they even want it. Or willing to do it. There really isn't a country on the planet where people of different religions all live together in harmony is there?

[meazza]

That's a damn decent point. I am not sure, however, that they even want it. Or willing to do it. There really isn't a country on the planet where people of different religions all live together in harmony is there?

538604[/snapback]

 

Well... I could argue that where I live, Montreal is probably one of the most multicultural places on the planet. If you visit a walmart in montreal you will probably see one representative from every nation

The thing is, sh-- happens and violence does sometimes happens as a result of the multiculturalism... for example, what happened at my school (Concordia University) between the Palestinian students and Israeli Students during the visit of former Prime Minister Netten Yahew (not sure if thats how you spell it) shows that even amongst young students, there is this raw hatred.

 

It could happen, but it takes a very long time. For example, in Montreal the French and English community were very separated, which sparked kidnappings by a terror group known as the FLQ. This sparked a sort of martial law which has never been seen before or again in Canada, and was a result of french nationalists who hated the english. This changed now as younger generations as myself generally grow to accept the differences, but you won't teach an old frenchman or englishman to learn or embrace the other language, the youth are more able to do it.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I am really just posing a thesis, and not saying that it is not. This isn't a partisan rant or perspective. I don't know the answer myself, and surely it is better than the government that preceded it. Whether the question of whether the war was worth it is not the issue here. But here is my problem:

 

Iraqis, it seems to me, unlike Americans, think religion or heritage first. Americans, Britains, French, etc, think country first. Surely there are exceptions, but the vast majority of Iraqis it seems, think of themselves as Kurds or Shia or Sunni first, and Iraqi second. With a gun to their head, and it seems a lot of them have unfortunately had that experience, they would choose Kurd or Sunni or Shia over being an Iraqi. It is neither better or worse to think this way, but it seems that it is true, at least to me.

 

So perhaps a democracy of each Iraqi gets one vote is a terrible system for Iraq, because whoever is the majority cares more about their people as a whole than their country as a whole. So Kurds, for example, will never really have a fair shake or representation because they will always be outnumbered and outvoted and undervalued. It would be different if the general populace thought Iraqi first, because it could be like some of the minorities in the states. The blacks get some raw end of some deals due to prejudice, but they mostly get the same rights and opportunity even though they are the minority. But if Americans thought of themselves as white first and not Americans, then the laws passed and the candidates elected and the alleged equality for blacks would never ever be close to fair or just.

538537[/snapback]

 

Maybe. If democracy is suitable for ANY country, it's probably Iraq, as they have a reasonably long history of literacy and education for the region. I think the real problem is that democracy isn't suitable for ANYONE if it's forced down their throats like we're doing there...since it's then, in effect, undemocratic.

 

I don't think, though, that tribal loyalties or religious or ethnic differences necessarily preclude democracy. There's certainly ample history in the US alone of people having loyalties that were arguably tribal in nature, and aside from that little bit of nastiness in the early 1860s American democracy has largely flourished. Of course, that historical precedent, involving loyalties that were both artificial and very young, is no guarantee either.

[Kelly the Dog]

Well... I could argue that where I live, Montreal is probably one of the most multicultural places on the planet.  If you visit a walmart in montreal you will probably see one representative from every nation 

 

538613[/snapback]

If I ever visit a WalMart in Montreal, I hereby give one representative from every nation in the world carte blanche to shoot me. And since when is Montreal a country anyway?

[UConn James]

I'd like to think that democracy would and will work for them. Otherwise....

 

But these are people who've lived under rulers of one ilk or another for a few thousand years. They know better than to expect good things from the government, whatever its form --- despot, king, council, whatever. You could call this apathy, maybe, but it's simply a matter of trying to live their lives, get enough food for a day.... They'll vote if they can vote, they won't vote if they can't vote. The world doesn't end and young Sayeed still needs water.

 

Maybe more important is how they deal with the transition from govt with its basis on the "tribal" micro to one that is more "Iraq" macro. So, yeah, the formation of one nation among three constituencies, and a government that works for all of them equally, is going to be a minor miracle.

[Kelly the Dog]

Maybe.  If democracy is suitable for ANY country, it's probably Iraq, as they have a reasonably long history of literacy and education for the region.  I think the real problem is that democracy isn't suitable for ANYONE if it's forced down their throats like we're doing there...since it's then, in effect, undemocratic. 

 

I don't think, though, that tribal loyalties or religious or ethnic differences necessarily preclude democracy.  There's certainly ample history in the US alone of people having loyalties that were arguably tribal in nature, and aside from that little bit of nastiness in the early 1860s American democracy has largely flourished.  Of course, that historical precedent, involving loyalties that were both artificial and very young, is no guarantee either.

538655[/snapback]

One could argue that the very reason that the great experiment worked was precisely because virtually everyone that came here did think America first over ethnicity or religion, which they were running from, and the small instances otherwise were short-lived. And surely one can have loyalties to both, but I am talking first loyalties, and when you are in a voting booth and it's usually one or the other, I am not thinking many Kurds or Sunnis are going to be poking those Shia chads through the ballots because some holyman promises to keep the Kurds happy.

[meazza]

If I ever visit a WalMart in Montreal, I hereby give one representative from every nation in the world carte blanche to shoot me.  And since when is Montreal a country anyway?

538676[/snapback]

 

the way things are going right now, i wouldn't be surprised if Canada separates into different nations

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

One could argue that the very reason that the great experiment worked was precisely because virtually everyone that came here did think America first over ethnicity or religion, which they were running from, and the small instances otherwise were short-lived.

538684[/snapback]

 

Actually, most people came over here not to escape prosecution but to make money, and typically swore their loyalty to their colony up to and through the American Revolution. Very, very, very few people swore loyalty any sort of greater ideal; that idea pretty much evolved with the Union, and not coincidentally evolved faster in the northern states than the south.

 

I was about to add that they benefited from a common background in European post-Renissaince liberalism and a common religion...but even that's not really true, as post-Reformation Christianity was just as bitterly divided as Islam is between Sunni and Shi'a now.

 

And surely one can have loyalties to both, but I am talking first loyalties, and when you are in a voting booth and it's usually one or the other, I am not thinking many Kurds or Sunnis are going to be poking those Shia chads through the ballots because some holyman promises to keep the Kurds happy.

 

And as I said, I don't intend my example to indicate that democracy in Iraq WILL succeed...merely that precedent indicates that it CAN succeed regardless of divided religions and ethnic loyalties. It can also fail because of those divided loyalties. Though in my opinion, if democracy in Iraq fails for any reason, it'll be because the Islamic world has never really accepted the idea of a separate secular government independent of religion: the founding fathers of the US had the benefits of the Renaissance and Reformation that weakened the hold of the Vatican on European governments and practically introduced the concept of secular government into western thought. Iraq has no such history, and there's no real reason to believe that even your average Iraqi, Sunni or Shi'a, will accept the authority of a secular government over the Word of Allah. If democracy in Iraq fails - and I believe it will - it'll be largely because it was a western brand of secular democracy that was forced down their throats. If you REALLY want democracy to succeed in an Islamic country, it either has to be of the traditional Afghan tribal type, or has to have in its roots some new-found Islamic philosophy that allows for a uniquely Islamic brand of democracy (for example, some idea that becomes widely accepted that the Will of Allah can be expressed through the will of his subjects via majority vote).

[Kelly the Dog]

Actually, most people came over here not to escape prosecution but to make money, and typically swore their loyalty to their colony up to and through the American Revolution.  Very, very, very few people swore loyalty any sort of greater ideal; that idea pretty much evolved with the Union, and not coincidentally evolved faster in the northern states than the south. 

 

538724[/snapback]

Well, while that is certainly true, I did mean why the great experiment of America succeeded, as in the United States of America, which would by definition mean post revolution. But what is more American than "to make money"?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Well, while that is certainly true, I did mean why the great experiment of America succeeded, as in the United States of America, which would by definition mean post revolution. But what is more American than "to make money"? 

538737[/snapback]

 

And even post-Revolution, loyalty to the states tended to take precedence to loyalty to the Union. But even so, I'd tend to discount that in reference to Iraq, for the simple reason that the socio-political nature of Iraq right now is probably closer to Revolutionary War America (defining it as ending with the acceptance and implementation of the Constitution), rather than the later post-Revolutionary period (call it from the Louisiana Purchase to Fort Sumter.)

 

And lest anyone think, despite my disclaimers, that I'm saying that a democratic Iraq will succeed because the US did in the 1780's...the states' first attempt at federal government - the Articles of Confederation - failed pretty thoroughly. The success of the democratic experiment wasn't even a foregone conclusion here; why should it be in Iraq?

[Kelly the Dog]

And even post-Revolution, loyalty to the states tended to take precedence to loyalty to the Union.  But even so, I'd tend to discount that in reference to Iraq, for the simple reason that the socio-political nature of Iraq right now is probably closer to Revolutionary War America (defining it as ending with the acceptance and implementation of the Constitution), rather than the later post-Revolutionary period (call it from the Louisiana Purchase to Fort Sumter.) 

 

And lest anyone think, despite my disclaimers, that I'm saying that a democratic Iraq will succeed because the US did in the 1780's...the states' first attempt at federal government - the Articles of Confederation - failed pretty thoroughly.  The success of the democratic experiment wasn't even a foregone conclusion here; why should it be in Iraq?

538740[/snapback]

I guess I am putting a lot more stock in the fact that religion and ethnic heritage is a much stronger pull and bond than whether you were living in Pennsylvania or Virginia, even though their inhabitants loyalty was more to their state than their union. It's like our loyalty to the Bills. I would get in a fight over the Bills but I wouldn't go to a war over them. I am Jewish but I wouldnt go to war for the Israelis. I was born a New Yorker, but I wouldnt go to war to save New York. I am white but if white people started a war against yellow or red or black people just over color I would not go to war over it. But I would go to war for America. I suppose, however, I may have seen things differently had i been living in the early 1860s.

[X. Benedict]

I guess I am putting a lot more stock in the fact that religion and ethnic heritage is a much stronger pull and bond than whether you were living in Pennsylvania or Virginia, even though their inhabitants loyalty was more to their state than their union. It's like our loyalty to the Bills. I would get in a fight over the Bills but I wouldn't go to a war over them. I am Jewish but I wouldnt go to war for the Israelis. I was born a New Yorker, but I wouldnt go to war to save New York. I am white but if white people started a war against yellow or red or black people just over color I would not go to war over it. But I would go to war for America. I suppose, however, I may have seen things differently had i been living in the early 1860s.

538742[/snapback]

 

The third acticle of confederation pretty much sums up the extent of the power they originally intended to give to a federal government: at issue was not creating a great democracy but protecting liberty and the sovereignty of each state, and beyond that collective security.

 

II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

 

III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.

 

The difficulty with democracy is that it is the fruit of liberty. A country without a history of protecting civil liberties, or a rudimentary concept of it will struggle for years creating a democratic state where there is rule of law and jurisprudence.

[Johnny Coli]

I think the real problem is that democracy isn't suitable for ANYONE if it's forced down their throats like we're doing there...since it's then, in effect, undemocratic. 

538655[/snapback]

It's certainly failed in South America.

 

Leftist shift in South America

Morales [the new President of Bolivia] gave the kind of leftist speech that increasingly strikes a chord with Latin America's disenchanted voters, railing against privatization, liberalized trade and other economic prescriptions backed by the United States.

...

Since an army colonel, Hugo Chávez, won office in Venezuela in 1998, three quarters of South America has shifted to the left, though most countries are led by pragmatic presidents like Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in Brazil and Néstor Kirchner in Argentina.

 

That decisive shift has a good chance of spreading to Bolivia, Ecuador and, for the first time in recent years, north of the Panama Canal.

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

This is a great discussion, folks. Kudos to all who have participated.

 

I, for one, believe that ANYONE can have Democracy if they want it badly enough. And, by and large, I think that Iraq is showing signs of wanting it. A 70% turnout for an election would rival or better that of any of the highly evolved Western Democracies (with the exception of Australia where voting is mandatory).

 

They need time. It isn't going to happen over night. What they evolve may not look much like our democracy. But it will be a democracy nonetheless. Or so I think.

[chicot]

It's certainly failed in South America.

 

Leftist shift in South America

538841[/snapback]

 

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here, perhaps you were being sarcastic? Democracy is alive and well in South America. Perhaps it may not be producing the kind of results that the US would like, but it is democratic none the less.

[Johnny Coli]

Democracy is alive and well in South America. Perhaps it may not be producing the kind of results that the US would like, but it is democratic none the less.

538857[/snapback]

Yes, that's what I meant. The US put a pretty big stamp on South America, and it's certainly not what they envisioned when they spent all that time and money down there trying to get rid of the Leftists.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Yes, that's what I meant.  The US put a pretty big stamp on South America, and it's certainly not what they envisioned when they spent all that time and money down there trying to get rid of the Leftists.

538863[/snapback]

 

Not leftists, Communists.

 

And Venezuela is HARDLY a democratic nation any more.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Yes, that's what I meant.  The US put a pretty big stamp on South America, and it's certainly not what they envisioned when they spent all that time and money down there trying to get rid of the Leftists.

538863[/snapback]

 

Which, personally, I have no problem with.

 

I also don't necessarily see that as a precedent for democracy in Iraq. The repeated failure (or quasi-failure, or periodic abandonment and re-adoption) of democracy in Pakistan is probably the best precedent for Iraqi democracy out there.