Is Democracy even the best idea for Iraq?

[Kelly the Dog]

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

539349[/snapback]

Probably because this particular week, their religious leaders were telling their people get out there and vote. And in another week they would be saying let's protest this, and in another week they would be saying lets sabotage this, and in another week they may be saying if you dont vote, the Shia are going to allow gay marriages and your lives will be ruined. That tactic probably would have gotten 90% instead of 60% or whatever.

[Alaska Darin]

Probably because this particular week, their religious leaders were telling their people get out there and vote. And in a another week they would be saying let's protest this, and in another week they would be saying lets sabotage this, and in another week they may be saying if you dont vote, the Shia are going to allow gay marriages and your lives will be ruined. That tactic probably would have gotten 90% instead of 60% or whatever.

539379[/snapback]

And that's different from the Democrats/Republicans how? **

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

** Good luck teaching me to be less confrontational.

[chicot]

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.

539345[/snapback]

 

The USSR may have had more oil in absolute terms but I think I'm correct in saying that, in terms of oil per head of population, Venezuela has many times the oil wealth that the USSR had, since it's population is much smaller (25 million to about 200 million).

[Chilly]

And that's different from any US political party how?

539386[/snapback]

 

**Corrected**

[Ghost of BiB]

How are we defining democracy? Sweden, technically is a democracy - but far different from the American idea of democracy. Still western, but socialist in philosophy. Is "democracy" a euphanism for peoples having some say in the form of government they will live under? If so, the Bolivians have, by a wide margin, democratically elected a leader. I don't see the issue. Iraq is a far different situation. It's kind of like life on other planets (democracy). It will be recognized as life - but likely not as we know it. We tend to view things through American eyes, convieniently forgetting that:

 

1. No one else does. And,

2. Our skirts aren't clean.

3. It doesn't matter, because we are smarter than eveyone else - we have IPODs.

 

Our version of "democracy" (whatever that REALLY is, at the end of 2005) went through a lot of growing pains to get us to whatever it is today. "Democracy", in Iraq will ultimately take hold, I think - but will also look a lot different than anything we think we are used to. Probably, the biggest issue is the separation of Church and State. In many sectors of the Muslim world, there isn't a fine distinction, as politics and religion have been linked and intertwined from basically day one that Islam formed. Mohammed was not only a prophet, he was a politician and a general. The very concept of Jihad is a part of everyday life to most middle east muslims, and is a strong part of the political process. Jihad (which has nothing to do with Holy War, except when uttered by extremist nuts) is more a philosophy, and can be loosely defined as "a call to action". It is sometimes looked at as the sixth main pillar of obligation, and the only one calling for a collective rather than an individual response in terms of Islamic responsibilities. The call to action is basically to work collectively towards the common good of Islam - more so than to the Islamic people. Whatever your opinions are about good, bad, right or wrong or indifferent - an attempt at any purely secular political process within an Islamic nation is going to fail, because it is way too left wing of the culture. Sadaam did not ignore any of that in his "Secular" dictatorship - which should give one an idea of the power, and the intertwining, that is there.

[Adam]

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]

It will constantly evolve, like every government does- this is what is best