Democracy In Iraq: Are Lawyers Their Only Hope?

[Luke T.]

So I'm still reading Democracy In America by Alexis De Tocqueville. I read maybe five or six pages a day. What with the babies and busy home life, I only get a chance to read while I scarf down my breakfast and lunch. After a couple months, I'm only on page 316 of 943 pages.

Yesterday, I come across this passage:


...if a democratic republic similar to that of the United States were ever founded in a country where the power of a single individual had previously subsisted, and the effects of a centralized administration had sunk keep into the habits and laws of the people, I do not hesitate to assert, that in that country a more insufferable despotism would prevail than any which now exists in the monarchial States of Europe, or indeed than any which could be found on this side of the confines of Asia.

That was written in 1835.

His premise was that while the U.S. at that time had a centralized government, it did not have centralized administration, and that made all the difference in our survival. Otherwise, we would have had a tyranny of the majority. With the majority prone to passions, and the ability to carry out those passions through a centralized administration, we would suffer despotism. Fortunately for us, administration is decentralized. The national government can only implement its policies through the vehicles of local enforcement.

Majority passions have been quite evident since 9/11, vis a vis the Patriot Act and so on. Some of you may recall, however, that when Uncle Sam called for local governments to turn over the names of immigrants from certain Muslim nations, Oregon refused.

We also have a history of overturning laws passed during the heat of passion later on down the road. I anticipate the Patriot Act will go this route. World War 1 saw far worse legislation which subsequently passed away.

But Iraq has had a centralized government and centralized administration. This bodes ill for them.

What does De Tocqueville have to say about this? Well.....


Men who have more especially devoted themselves to legal pursuits derive from those occupations certain habits of order, a taste for formalities, and a kind of instinctive regard for the regular connection of ideas, which naturally render them very hostile to the revolutionary spirit and the unreflecting passions of the multitude.

So lawyers gum up the works. :D

I like the phrase "instinctive regard for the regular connection of ideas."

Skeptics.

;)

[Michael Redman]

That's old lawyers. New lawyers are different. All they care about is money. Kind of the way that old conservatives were for states' rights, and now we have the Republicans pushing a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage in such a way as to effect the tyranny of the majority in an area that clearly belongs under the authority of states and individuals, and not to the Federal Government.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
That's old lawyers. New lawyers are different. All they care about is money. Kind of the way that old conservatives were for states' rights, and now we have the Republicans pushing a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage in such a way as to effect the tyranny of the majority in an area that clearly belongs under the authority of states and individuals, and not to the Federal Government.

The marriage amendment sounds like an excellent separate topic. ;)

Regardless of how anyone feels about events in Iraq, we must accept that there has been a regime change. I am curious about people's ideas for the best way to proceed there toward a stable, long-lasting government, keeping in mind that it will be a long process, and taking a look at the paroxyms our own country had to go through before it stabilized.

Vision, folks. How far can you see?

[Hexxenhammer]

Personally, I think trying to keep it together in one piece will be difficult. I heard an idea on NPR yesterday to make it 3 states. Kurdish North, Suni middle, Shia South. It'll never happen, but it makes sense.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Personally, I think trying to keep it together in one piece will be difficult. I heard an idea on NPR yesterday to make it 3 states. Kurdish North, Suni middle, Shia South. It'll never happen, but it makes sense.

Democray wont workin Iraq. Find me a working democracy in a country that has such large and powerful religious rivals.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Personally, I think trying to keep it together in one piece will be difficult. I heard an idea on NPR yesterday to make it 3 states. Kurdish North, Suni middle, Shia South. It'll never happen, but it makes sense.

The U.S. is 50 states, so three states united in Iraq under one nation is feasible. I think making three separate nations divided by religion would be a serious mistake.

The administration should be decentralized, I think, based on the reasoning of de Tocqueville.

As for Michael Redman's comments about lawyers, I think during times of duress, such as what is going on in Iraq right now, those people who are the best end up being elevated toward positions of power and influence. Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison. We had an amazing collection of minds in our early days. And it wasn't just chance that put them into position to form our government.

During times of relative prosperity, then the populist elements are in favor. People get in a "what's in it for me?" frame of mind and don't often think of the greater good. But when the nation is threatened, they suborn these selfish impulses.

Iraq is probably overrun with demagogues right now. Lots and lots of passions. They need Cato...

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Luke T.


The U.S. is 50 states, so three states united in Iraq under one nation is feasible. ...

Yeah but the US states are failry homogenious (and we still had a Civil War). Imagine if the Country of America was made up of the "states" of Quebec, the Continental US, and Mexico.

Right now we have a hard enough time dealing wh Republicans and Democrats. Imagine tossing those others into the pot.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Tmy


Yeah but the US states are failry homogenious (and we still had a Civil War). Imagine if the Country of America was made up of the "states" of Quebec, the Continental US, and Mexico.

Right now we have a hard enough time dealing wh Republicans and Democrats. Imagine tossing those others into the pot.

The U.S. was hardly homogenous at the beginning. The reason "we still had a Civil War" was precisely because we weren't homogenous on the issue of slavery.

Yet we still held it together. And at great cost. And afterwards, our laws were radically different.

I can't think of a time when the U.S. has been homogenous. We are a "melting pot." Ever changing.

Even before we were a "United States," we weren't homogenous. The Northeast was settled by Puritans while the South was settled by renegades, profiteers and gold-diggers.

Just look at the differences in laws from one state to another in these very times. In one state, you go to jail for carrying a concealed handgun, while in another state you go to jail if your handgun isn't carried concealed!

You got your Southern Baptists, your Mormons, your Muslims, your Catholics, your Jews, your atheists, and on and on and on. Your white, black, yellow, brown, red.

Hardly homogenous.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Luke T.

The U.S. is 50 states, so three states united in Iraq under one nation is feasible. I think making three separate nations divided by religion would be a serious mistake.
Much of the world is decending into tribalism. Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Afghanistan, etc etc. All the artificial borders that colonial powers and lines drawn after wars are breaking down. It might be better if everyone had their own little chunk of land. However, then it's only a matter of time before one of those other tribes has something your tribe wants, ie oil. And then the wars start again. I don't think anyone can really win this one.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Tmy


Democray wont workin Iraq. Find me a working democracy in a country that has such large and powerful religious rivals.

The United States, for one.

E pluribus unum.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer

Much of the world is decending into tribalism. Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Afghanistan, etc etc. All the artificial borders that colonial powers and lines drawn after wars are breaking down. It might be better if everyone had their own little chunk of land. However, then it's only a matter of time before one of those other tribes has something your tribe wants, ie oil. And then the wars start again. I don't think anyone can really win this one.

Entropy? :D

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Luke T.




You got your Southern Baptists, your Mormons, your Muslims, your Catholics, your Jews, your atheists, and on and on and on. Your white, black, yellow, brown, red.

Hardly homogenous.

yeah but were talking a vast majority that are jedo-christian, based, and a vast majority are english speaking. The differences are relativly small. Unlike the differences we had with say........the native indians. And look what happened to them.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Luke T.


The United States, for one.

E pluribus unum.

Luke the US was initially formed of people with a common language, law, politics and most importantly a history of the rule of law. The original country was in some ways more homogenous than Britain, itself hardly noted as a hotbed of instability throughout the ages! It benefited from lousy communications by modern standards - as a result any differences of opinion between e.g. religious groups in different states rarely caused friction. In addition the immense amount of physical space available made it easy for any disaffected individual or group to move elsewhere. It is hard to imagine any new country which faced fewer challenges.

For these and many other reasons I think it is a mistake to believe that the federal structure which has served the US well can be applied to a country such as Iraq. The obvious divisions are:- Shia south which will tend to be drawn to shia Iran. Kurdish north which would be tempted to coalesce with Kurds in Turkey and Iran. Sunni middle, god knows what would happen to that.

A centralised state with limited powers devolved to small local areas might work better but it is hard to be optimistic about any kind of democratic system working in such a fractured country in the short term. The oil wealth makes things more dificult as if a party or individual can "capture" that source of income they are not obliged to worry too much about wealth generation which depends on the "social contract" as in the West.