Is Democracy even the best idea for Iraq?

[Johnny Coli]

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.

538868[/snapback]

The point being that a lot of effort can be put into it, but the results may not be what the neo-cons envision for the area, which speaks to K-dog's point.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

The point being that a lot of effort can be put into it, but the results may not be what the neo-cons envision for the area, which speaks to K-dog's point.

538878[/snapback]

 

But even if it's not a democracy like ours, it's better than what they had.

[chicot]

Not leftists, Communists.

 

And Venezuela is HARDLY a democratic nation any more.

538865[/snapback]

 

And if they are communists, so what? Do you think poverty stricken peasants care overmuch about what label is applied to their government. I suspect they have more immediate issues to worry about. Why shouldn't the natural resources of Venezuela or Bolivia be used to benefit their populations rather than a tiny elite or multinational companies?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

And if they are communists, so what? Do you think poverty stricken peasants care overmuch about what label is applied to their government. I suspect they have more immediate issues to worry about. Why shouldn't the natural resources of Venezuela or Bolivia be used to benefit their populations rather than a tiny elite or multinational companies?

538888[/snapback]

 

Because, in the end, economic collectivization is DISASTROUS. History has proven this time and again. Communist regimes have consistently been a bane to the common man.

 

Examples:

 

The Ukraine

Maoist China

North Korea

An unaided Cuba

[GG]

And if they are communists, so what? Do you think poverty stricken peasants care overmuch about what label is applied to their government. I suspect they have more immediate issues to worry about. Why shouldn't the natural resources of Venezuela or Bolivia be used to benefit their populations rather than a tiny elite or multinational companies?

538888[/snapback]

 

Because it's been universally evident that the stricken peasants never see the benefits of promised populist nirvana that Latin American socialist saviors have been promising for the last 50 years.

 

Latin America finally started turning the corner in improving their economies and raising the standard of living for the population by embracing Western economic thought (and heavy investment). The problem is that the socialists never went away, and are keen to use the recoveriers to make claims that they could do better for the people.

 

But, I wonder if I can predict the outcome of the return of socialists to power in Lat Am, and the exit of private investment from LatAm?

 

The primary difference between South & North America, is that North America has democratized its economy, while the ruling class still holds the economic keys in the banana republics.

 

Now I'll wait for the responses on how great communism has been for the common man.

[Johnny Coli]

In fairness to chicot, it was I that brought up South America in this thread. I was attempting to add to K-dog's point about not always getting exactly what you are gunning for with regards to nation building, and in some cases it might not even be what the people ultimately want.

 

I was not proposing that communism is a stellar choice, nor was I suggesting it is a successful style of governing. I was merely pointing out that there has been a significant shift towards the left in South America that has coincided with a "distaste" for the hands-on approach that the US has had down there over the past 20 odd years.

[X. Benedict]

But even if it's not a democracy like ours, it's better than what they had.

538882[/snapback]

Jury could be out on that statement. I do hope it works out well, but a prolonged civil war or a theocracy is not out of the realm of possibility in Iraq's future.

 

I have seen quite a few references to post-war Japan and Germany, but very few people talk about the weak democracies of pre-war Japan and Germany and what those led to. A weak democracy is fertile ground for tomorrow's totalitarian. You could also look to Lenin's overthrow of the provisional government in the wake of the Tsar.

 

Once a government is formed, the real trick is keeping moderate factions in power without a strong lurch to the religious right, or to some type of Sunni nationalistic left.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

In fairness to chicot, it was I that brought up South America in this thread.  I was attempting to add to K-dog's point about not always getting exactly what you are gunning for with regards to nation building, and in some cases it might not even be what the people ultimately want.

 

Was that his point? I took his point to be, and answered in kind, more of the "Western democracy ain't for everyone" nature rather than the "Neo-cons are tilting at windmills" nature.

 

Not that your point isn't equally valid...I also think, which should be clear from my previous posts, that this idea of "exporting democracy" is on its face bull sh--, since you cannot by definition force on someone the right to self-determination. I also think it's a much less interesting discussion, being as it is somewhat partisan in nature. I'd much rather discuss whether and how democracy can succeed - or fail - in Iraq without having to worry about a "Bush sucks" postscript.

 

I was not proposing that communism is a stellar choice, nor was I suggesting it is a successful style of governing.  I was merely pointing out that there has been a significant shift towards the left in South America that has coincided with a "distaste" for the hands-on approach that the US has had down there over the past 20 odd years.

538958[/snapback]

 

200-odd years is more like it. And it's interesting that people still want to interpret "significant shift to the left" in a Cold War fashion...

[chicot]

Because, in the end, economic collectivization is DISASTROUS. History has proven this time and again. Communist regimes have consistently been a bane to the common man.

 

Examples:

 

The Ukraine

Maoist China

North Korea

An unaided Cuba

538917[/snapback]

 

You could just as easily give as many examples of unrestricted capitalist regimes that have been a bane to the common man. The Scandinavian model of socialism has hardly been a disaster for their countries. I agree with you in that I do not believe that hardcore communism is a practical option. However, I do believe that some form of social redistribution of wealth is necessary in societies where inequalities are so entrenched, such as Bolivia and Venezuela.

[GG]

. However, I do believe that some form of social redistribution of wealth is necessary in societies where inequalities are so entrenched, such as Bolivia and Venezuela.

539048[/snapback]

 

And this is where your good intention falls apart. There is a world of difference in long term sustainability and beneficial impact of wealth distribution vs promoting wealth generation.

 

Wealth distribution is a much easier topic to sell, because you score a victory in taking money from the rich. Too bad the populists don't recognize the pyrrhic nature of thes victories, since the rich usually run with their wealth when faced with wealth distribution programs, so you end up distributing the "wealth" of the poor to keep the votes.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

However, I do believe that some form of social redistribution of wealth is necessary in societies where inequalities are so entrenched, such as Bolivia and Venezuela.

539048[/snapback]

 

And I believe historically the result of such social distribution of wealth has removed those inequities not by lifting the downtrodden up, but by insuring everyone sinks to the same level of poverty.

 

Of course, traditional Communist theory has typically swept that historical fact under the rug by saying that such societies weren't yet sufficiently advanced to benefit from a socialist revolution...the proletariat weren't yet sufficiently aware of their right to the wealth of the bourgeois or something...

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

You could just as easily give as many examples of unrestricted capitalist regimes that have been a bane to the common man. The Scandinavian model of socialism has hardly been a disaster for their countries. I agree with you in that I do not believe that hardcore communism is a practical option. However, I do believe that some form of social redistribution of wealth is necessary in societies where inequalities are so entrenched, such as Bolivia and Venezuela.

539048[/snapback]

 

 

And I am of the opinion that the only thing redistribution of said assets will accomplish is a fascist backlash. See El Salvador.

[chicot]

Because it's been universally evident that the stricken peasants never see the benefits of promised populist nirvana that Latin American socialist saviors have been promising for the last 50 years. 

 

Latin America finally started turning the corner in improving their economies and raising the standard of living for the population by embracing Western economic thought (and heavy investment).  The problem is that the socialists never went away, and are keen to use the recoveriers to make claims that they could do better for the people. 

 

But, I wonder if I can predict the outcome of the return of socialists to power in Lat Am, and the exit of private investment from LatAm? 

 

The primary difference between South & North America, is that North America has democratized its economy, while the ruling class still holds the economic keys in the banana republics.

 

Now I'll wait for the responses on how great communism has been for the common man.

538935[/snapback]

 

"The primary difference between South & North America, is that North America has democratized its economy, while the ruling class still holds the economic keys in the banana republics."

 

And therein lies the problem. Economic growth is all well and good but if it doesn't result in alleviating the poverty of most of the population but instead goes straight into the pocket of the elite, can you blame the have-nots for seeking an alternative? Say what you like about Chavez but the fact is that he is investing massively in social programs. People who have never had access to healthcare are now getting treated and people who have never received an education are now learning to read and write. Now, you might be able to convince these people that these are bad things and that they should just be content to live in poverty while the rich get richer, and that somewhere down the track, maybe in 10 or 20 years, some of the wealth might trickle down to them. Myself, I think it would be a hard sell.

 

As for the exit of private investment from Latin America, look what happened with the renegotiation of the oil contracts in Venezuela. Yes, the oil companies whined that they would no longer get a free ride, but in the end, Chevron, BP, Shell and Total all signed new contracts rather than risking losing the oil contracts altogether. Only ExxonMobil is holding out and I wouldn't be too suprised if they caved in the end.

[Chilly]

I think that there are two main factors that will determine whether democracy will work in Iraq or not, and it isn't the culture differences between the Kurds/Sunnis/Shiites.

 

1.) Education - The backbone of a strong, solid democracy is education, (at least while its getting off the ground, just look at the US today *kidding*). You must have the education to make intelligent choices between candidates, to understand what is best for you (and, also, the country). Education about economic development is going to be critical in the coming days in Iraq to sustain a democracy.

 

2.) Economics - In order for long term survival of the democracy, there must be economic development taking place. The standard of living for the average person needs to be going up. I view economic development as kinda like winning in football, you win or develop economically, and lots of problems tend to go away.

 

Throughout history, the main drive behind many, many regime changes has been economic development. When people get upset enough to overthrow the government, lots of times its because they don't have food on the table. Hunger can make people do things they wouldn't have done otherwise.

 

Its hard saying whether Democracy will work in Iraq. I tend to think so because Iraq's people, like CTM said, do seem to be higher educated then elsewhere in the Middle East. Its all up to economics now imo.

[Kelly the Dog]

I think that there are two main factors that will determine whether democracy will work in Iraq or not, and it isn't the culture differences between the Kurds/Sunnis/Shiites.

 

1.) Education - The backbone of a strong, solid democracy is education, (at least while its getting off the ground, just look at the US today  *kidding*).  You must have the education to make intelligent choices between candidates, to understand what is best for you (and, also, the country).  Education about economic development is going to be critical in the coming days in Iraq to sustain a democracy.

 

2.) Economics - In order for long term survival of the democracy, there must be economic development taking place.  The standard of living for the average person needs to be going up.  I view economic development as kinda like winning in football, you win or develop economically, and lots of problems tend to go away.

 

Throughout history, the main drive behind many, many regime changes has been economic development.  When people get upset enough to overthrow the government, lots of times its because they don't have food on the table.  Hunger can make people do things they wouldn't have done otherwise.

 

Its hard saying whether Democracy will work in Iraq.  I tend to think so because Iraq's people, like CTM said, do seem to be higher educated then elsewhere in the Middle East.  Its all up to economics now imo. 

539272[/snapback]

While that sounds good, and a lot of it is true, IMO it's the cart before the horse, or it's impossible without the country being together first. I don't see how the education and the economy are going to have a chance in hell unless the threat of civil war or the attitude adjustment of a we're-in-this-together solidarity takes place beforehand. It's possible, I just don't find it highly likely.

[GG]

And therein lies the problem. Economic growth is all well and good but if it doesn't result in alleviating the poverty of most of the population but instead goes straight into the pocket of the elite, can you blame the have-nots for seeking an alternative? Say what you like about Chavez but the fact is that he is investing massively in social programs. People who have never had access to healthcare are now getting treated and people who have never received an education are now learning to read and write. Now, you might be able to convince these people that these are bad things and that they should just be content to live in poverty while the rich get richer, and that somewhere down the track, maybe in 10 or 20 years, some of the wealth might trickle down to them. Myself, I think it would be a hard sell.

539262[/snapback]

 

And we'll see how long these programs will last if oil drops into the $40's, and whether the oil riches will actually flow into the people's hands instead of Chavez cronies. Come to think of it, USSR had more oil than Venezuela, and medicine & education were free as well.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

While that sounds good, and a lot of it is true, IMO it's the cart before the horse, or it's impossible without the country being together first. I don't see how the education and the economy are going to have a chance in hell unless the threat of civil war or the attitude adjustment of a we're-in-this-together solidarity takes place beforehand. It's possible, I just don't find it highly likely.

539286[/snapback]

 

Then how do you account for the high SUnni turnout in the recent election?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Then how do you account for the high SUnni turnout in the recent election?

539349[/snapback]

 

Or, to rephrase that less confrontationally: the Sunni turnout for the recent elections is one of the first real promising signs that the solidarity of which you speak might be achievable, Kelly. Even if the end result isn't that solidarity, it's still a hard indicator that the Iraqi people, regardless of ethnicity, are accepting the idea that they have a role in their own rule, and it's not just being dictated to them by a foreign power.

 

Regardless of the success or failure of democracy, that is still a huge step for the occupation.

[Alaska Darin]

Great. Tom's now teaching people how to be less confrontational.

 

(Looks around for giant meteor)

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Great.  Tom's now teaching people how to be less confrontational. 

 

(Looks around for giant meteor)

539362[/snapback]

 

Yeah. I'm teaching it. To JSP.

 

As utterly a futile pursuit as that is, I may as well spend my time teaching BF to cook...