Democracy in Iraq- A Square Peg in a Round Hole?

[Mr Manifesto]

Now that the imminent threat wasn't as imminent as first believed, and the weapons of mass destruction have become weapons of minor damage, the coalition, reasonably enough, is trying to make the most of a bad situation by installing a system of democracy in Iraq.

But is such a thing possible? Of interest are several articles. First, this one from The Age (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/19/1079199423948.html):

In truth, democracy does not exist in the Middle East, apart from Israel. So how can it be planted in Iraq, which has known only occupation and puppet statehood, repression and ruthlessness since it was set up by Britain in the 1920s?

(only a sample from the article, goes into a little more depth once you get past the anecdotes).

Then there is this article from the Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0808/p06s01-wome.html) which discusses concerns that liberation may 'push Iraq's Shiite majority into the arms of Iranian theocrats.' (interesting choice of words: almost as though the Shiites have no mind of their own, unable to decide how they want to be governed)

Richard Perle, in an article in the Washington Post last year (21 April 2003) also felt that Iraq becoming a theocracy was a strong possibility adding that should this occur, the United States will have to 'live with that choice'.

The United States has been criticised time an again for imposing her will upon other countries, as though she is a better judge of how a country should be run than their own people. It's worth remembering that the US solidly backed the Ba'athist party when it took power, and for several decades after that. Is it time for the US to let go, and simply withdraw from Iraq, allowing the country to decide for herself how to be governed?

I'd appreciate if anyone responding to this topic could refrain from racist comments, eg comments about Arabs being 'backwards'. Otherwise, any thoughts appreciated.

[Chaos]

Will making Iraq a democracy work? That is a difficult question. I think we should first ask:

Has making a country a democracy ever worked?

I know of two examples where it did, and a lot of examples (third world countries, mainly in Africa) where it didn´t).

The two "working" examples are, of course, Germany and Japan.

But Germany is thoroughly different from Iraq, as after WW2, all but the youngest adults still remembered living in a democracy, and the basic institutions of democracy only had to be restored, not created from scratch.

Japan is also different, because in Japan, the nominal leader of the nation, Emperor Hirohito, was still there and in office after the war, although both before and after he was merely a figurehead. This both gave some sense of continuity, and it gave the changes that were imposed on Japan the backing of authority, since the Japanese Emperor was/is regarded as, if not a god, then something very close to it.

On the other hand, most - if not all - the "failed" examples share one or more traits with Iraq: ethnically diverse population, strong religious differences between parts of the population, a dictator who was overthrown creating a power vacuum, ...


So, while of course I hope it will work, I am very pessimistic.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

I certainly wouldn't claim that a particular (and poorly-defined) ethnic group is "backwards", but there is a grain of truth in that statement. The social and political changes that lead to democratic governments and modern legal systems in the Western world took centuries to arise.

I don't think you can bypass that process of development. Each step leads to the next; each change catalyzes further changes. Trying to hasten the process, or skipping directly to a later stage in the sequence, probably will end in failure.

[apoger]

But is such a thing possible?

Of course it is.
Democracy has flourished in many differing places. The fate of Iraq is hard to postulate, but it certainly is possible that democracy in some form will take hold there.


You know what else is 'possible'?
That this would be a disscusion for the Political forum as it really has little to do with critical thinking.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by apoger

You know what else is 'possible'?
That this would be a disscusion for the Political forum as it really has little to do with critical thinking.

First, perhaps you know how such discussions end in the Political forum. That is probably the reason why Mr Manifesto opened the thread here instead.

Second, it has a lot to do with critical thinking, since we are trying to determine something through the use of logic and evidence.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by apoger


Of course it is.
Democracy has flourished in many differing places. The fate of Iraq is hard to postulate, but it certainly is possible that democracy in some form will take hold there.


You know what else is 'possible'?
That this would be a disscusion for the Political forum as it really has little to do with critical thinking.

I want to see how a debate on the Iraq occupation goes when you take away the ability to insult.

[apoger]

I want to see how a debate on the Iraq occupation goes when you take away the ability to insult.

You stated "...the coalition, reasonably enough, is trying to make the most of a bad situation by installing a system of democracy in Iraq". This implies that the coalition didn't intend to install a democracy from the start, which is the case.

You then asked the ultimate lightweight question of "Is something possible?"

You then make no claim of your own while implying via the articles that you feel that Iraq cannot support a democracy.

If you want to "see how a debate on the Iraq occupation goes when you take away the ability to insult" then perhaps you should start by making a statement or taking a stand.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by apoger


You stated "...the coalition, reasonably enough, is trying to make the most of a bad situation by installing a system of democracy in Iraq". This implies that the coalition didn't intend to install a democracy from the start, which is the case.

You then asked the ultimate lighweight question of "Is something possible?"

You then make no claim of your own while implying via the articles that you feel that Iraq cannot support a democracy.

If you want to "see how a debate on the Iraq occupation goes when you take away the ability to insult" then perhaps you should start by making a statement or taking a stand.

I'm sorry you couldn't figure out my position from the opening post. I'm saying that introducing democracy to Iraq is pointless. I might also add that others, eg Chaos and WotS, were able to see my 'stand'.

[apoger]

I'm sorry you couldn't figure out my position from the opening post. I'm saying that introducing democracy to Iraq is pointless. I might also add that others, eg Chaos and WotS, were able to see my 'stand'.

As this is the Critical Thinking forum I am holding you to a higher standard. If you had made your original post in the political forum I wouldn't have said anything.

A common tactic seen on these forums is to ask a question and not make a claim, often with reference to other peoples works. This offers the implication of agreement with the referred works, without actually making a statement. Thus when questioned later the poster can backpeddle by saying that they never "said" what was implied, they were just posting it for consideration.

We should not have to "figure out" your position.
You made no claim or statement. Indeed you said the associated articles were "of interest" rather than saying that they agree with or support your view.

So now we have a claim:
"Introducing democracy to Iraq is pointless"

What do you mean by "pointless"? Are you saying that it is impossible for Iraq to have a democracy? Are you saying that it is without merit for Iraq to even entertain the ideals of democracy?

I ask you to state your claim with precision and clarity, and then in your own words offer some evidence as to why you feel this is the case.

[Loon]

Originally posted by Chaos
The two "working" examples are, of course, Germany and Japan.

--snip--

Japan is also different, because in Japan, the nominal leader of the nation, Emperor Hirohito, was still there and in office after the war, although both before and after he was merely a figurehead. This both gave some sense of continuity, and it gave the changes that were imposed on Japan the backing of authority, since the Japanese Emperor was/is regarded as, if not a god, then something very close to it.

I think it is worth noting that "democracy" in Japan is far from transparent and certainly not the beating heart of discourse the way it is in the US or Europe. And accusation of being "undemocaratic" seem to mean nothing here.

I do somewhat understand the "backwards" arguement (I think the arguement only deserves that name if you assume that any country lacking modern democratic ideals is "backwards"). If democracy fails in Iraq, I would promote this as the reason why.

Wrath of the Swarm is right. The ideas and ideals of democracy did not spring up, fully formed, overnight. They took time. If a society has been under a "might makes right" system for a time, as Iraw was, it will likely take some adjusting to get used to something where the right of policy goes to the biggest guns.

It's also worth noting that democracy in Iraq may take a very different form than in the west. The ideals common to the iraqi people (Assuming there is a single identifiable group- it does seem to be mishmash of mutually hostile groups) may be very different from ours. If a society votes itself into a hard-line Islamist state, does that make it undemocratic and evil?

[Reginald]

Originally posted by Loon


If a society votes itself into a hard-line Islamist state, does that make it undemocratic and evil?

Only if the mechanism for change of government disappears. Evil is rather a subjective word in this instance. The west tolerates Saudi Arabia, hardly a western style democracy, yet it's rarely branded as "Evil".

[Outcast]

Japan and Germany are special cases. Japan has the ability to learn and pick what is the best from the West without westernizing their culture. In Germany, we simple removed the Nazis and put Germany back to what it was prior to WWII, a modern, liberal, progressive state. Look at Afghanistan for 10 years the Russians tried to impose a communist style government on them and failed. Democracy and Communism are both foreign ideas and will fail in Moslem countries. It is the goal of every Moslem to live under Sharia Law

[whim]

An unlikely example of democracy taking root in a Muslim society - from the Christian Science Monitor (http://search.csmonitor.com/search_content/0326/p04s01-wome.html) again.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Outcast
Japan and Germany are special cases. Japan has the ability to learn and pick what is the best from the West without westernizing their culture. In Germany, we simple removed the Nazis and put Germany back to what it was prior to WWII, a modern, liberal, progressive state. Look at Afghanistan for 10 years the Russians tried to impose a communist style government on them and failed. Democracy and Communism are both foreign ideas and will fail in Moslem countries. It is the goal of every Moslem to live under Sharia Law

I think it is an inappropriately strong statement to say "Every" muslim. There are plenty in America, and as evidenced by the reform movement in Iran, plenty elsewhere, that would appreciate more political freedom.

[Outcast]

Originally posted by gnome


I think it is an inappropriately strong statement to say "Every" muslim. There are plenty in America, and as evidenced by the reform movement in Iran, plenty elsewhere, that would appreciate more political freedom. Canadian judges soon will be enforcing Islamic law, or Sharia, in
disputes between Muslims, possibly paving the way to one day
administering criminal sentences, such as stoning women caught in
adultery.

Muslims are required to submit to Sharia in Muslim societies but are
excused in nations where they live as a minority under a non-Muslim
government.

Canada, however, is preparing for its 1 million-strong Muslim minority
to be under the authority of a Sharia system enforced by the Canadian
court system, according to the Canadian Law Times.
Canada to Enforce Islamic Law (http://www.talkabouttravelling.com/group/rec.travel.usa-canada/messages/250986.html)

How about England?

SHARIA LAW: Islam is the new Church of England (http://www.michaelwoods.us/sharia)

United States is next. The Muslim here are already making demands for Islamic Law.

[Loon]

Originally posted by Outcast

Canada to Enforce Islamic Law (http://www.talkabouttravelling.com/group/rec.travel.usa-canada/messages/250986.html)

How about England?

SHARIA LAW: Islam is the new Church of England (http://www.michaelwoods.us/sharia)

United States is next. The Muslim here are already making demands for Islamic Law.

Note that this talks about disputes between Muslims. If you or I, as non-Muslims, have a dispute with a Muslim in Canada, Sharia does not apply. Canadian law applies. I think for disputes between Muslims, it would be adjudicated by the government as a contract dispute.

Also, though my knowledge of Sharia is sparse, I think it's a fairly broad stroke to say that a desire to live under Sharia is a desire to curtail political freedom.

There's also no info saying what percentage of Candian or English Muslims favor this system.

Nonetheless, I do find this disturbing.

[Outcast]

Originally posted by Loon


Note that this talks about disputes between Muslims. If you or I, as non-Muslims, have a dispute with a Muslim in Canada, Sharia does not apply. Canadian law applies. I think for disputes between Muslims, it would be adjudicated by the government as a contract dispute.

Also, though my knowledge of Sharia is sparse, I think it's a fairly broad stroke to say that a desire to live under Sharia is a desire to curtail political freedom.

There's also no info saying what percentage of Candian or English Muslims favor this system.

Nonetheless, I do find this disturbing. It doesn't matter if they favor it or not. If they are Muslim then they are under it, or they are outcasts.

I believe all you have to understand about Sharia Law is No Separation of Church and State (http://ireland.iol.ie/~afifi/Articles/law.htm)
The most difficult part of Islamic Law for most westerners to grasp is that there is no separation of church and state. The religion of Islam and the government are one. Islamic Law is controlled, ruled and regulated by the Islamic religion. The theocracy controls all public and private matters. Government, law and religion are one. There are varying degrees of this concept in many nations, but all law, government and civil authority rests upon it and it is a part of Islamic religion. There are civil laws in Muslim nations for Muslim and non-Muslim people. Sharia is only applicable to Muslims. Most Americans and others schooled in Common Law have great difficulty with that concept.

[Garrette]

Square peg? Who knows? Whatever happens won’t look like what we have in the States, but that’s neither good nor bad by itself.

If I have time to pen it, I’ll post something more focused on the OP, but for now I thought I’d share three anecdotes. All of them happened today in Baghdad, in the Green Zone. Maybe they’ll help explain why my own prognosis for Iraq changes over time. I am hopeful for the institutions being (re)established but fearful that political winds will tear them down.

Please excuse me if my style here is a bit maudlin. I am leaving this country very soon after nearly a year in-country, working closely with CPA. I’ve made lots of friends, many of whom have, to my surprise, feted me as I prepare to leave. I hope to return in a few years as a tourist and visit a truly vibrant Iraq; I’ve been assured I’ll have eager tour guides and plenty of laughing meals.

Regarding the anecdotes: the conversation is presented in quotation marks which it technically should not be. It is from my memory and from my notes jotted at the time. For clarity and impact, though, I will present it as if it is an exact representation. I give my assurances that it is an honest portrayal of the flavor and intent of the speakers.

The setting for the first two anecdotes is the second day of the National Symposium About the Strategy of the New Educational System and Curricula Reform.

This is the second such Symposium. The first was in January and was mostly a get-familiar-with-the-new-Minister’s-strange-ideas type of meeting. I was home on leave during that Symposium. The purpose is to establish the parameters for the committee (yet to be established) which will revise the Iraqi Curricula for grades K-12. Attendees include teachers, headmasters/mistresses, educational specialists, governing council members, community leaders, and others. The Minister of Education chaired it. I and the others from CPA and the military stayed on the sideline and provided logistical support. From the beginning, it has been our intent to let curriculum reform be a totally Iraqi project; it is working out to be just that. We (the non-participating non-Iraqis) had translators with us who kept us abreast of the subjects being discussed.

Here goes:

1. The topic under discussion was what name to call Islamic Studies. After some brief background on previous discussions of the subject, a teacher stood and spoke:

“We should rename this area of study. It can no longer be just ‘Islamic Studies.’ We must be more inclusive and allow all beliefs to flourish. We must call it ‘Religious Studies.’”

Another person stood to speak: “We are a country with Muslims, Christians, and Jews. All of us contribute to our society, and none should be excluded. It is proper to call this subject ‘Religious Studies.’”

And a third: “Religious teaching is the foundation of character development, and Islam is not the only religion practiced here. ‘Religious Studies’ is what we must do.”

And a fourth, and a fifth, until at least twelve people (of perhaps 300) spoke in favor of renaming the topic “Religious Studies.” Not a single person spoke against the idea.

We were ecstatic. No one in CPA or in my office had even raised this issue to them. None of us had pushed the idea. This was Iraqis growing up on their own. Our translator, Raghad, was jittery with excitement. She has worked with us since last summer. “They’re doing it! They’re doing it!”

So the Minister called for consensus. He said “Islamic Studies will be called the Old Method; Religious Studies will be called the New Method.”

“Raise your hands,” said the Minister, “if you are in favor of keeping the Old Method.”

Nearly every hand shot into the air.

We sat silent and stunned.

We thought we had misunderstood the translation. “Are they voting for the change?” we asked Raghad. But she sat still and mumbled “We lost. We lost. We lost.” She became angry. I became disappointed, but I believe there is hope in the fact that the Iraqis brought up the issue, and the Iraqis discussed it openly. Yes, we lost a vote, but there will be many more, and the curriculum itself has not been restricted. Perhaps I can still revisit my new friends in a few years.

---

2. A few moments later, talk turned to the next topic: Freedom of speech in the classroom for teachers and students. Again, we had not forced this issue on them; the Iraqis raised it themselves.

The first to speak was Ismael (his full name is Ismael Abdullah Yahyah). I have been close with him since June. He is a wonderfully kind man in his early 60s. Before the war, he was a minor functionary in the Ministry. When the top level of Ministry leadership fled and the next level were fired or jailed for corruption and incompetence, Ismael was promoted to the Director General of Finance and Administration. Until the Governing Council appointed a Minister in September, Ismael acted as the de facto Minister. It is a job he applied himself to with all the vigor his age and limited experience allowed him. He wanted to succeed, but it was beyond him. I and the civilian Advisors on the CPA side of the Ministry of Education guided him and supported him as best we could, usually making hard decisions ourselves, but Ismael was for a time the senior Iraqi in the Ministry and not equal to his task. He was tired before he took the job and exhausted when the Minister was appointed. Last month, the Minister appointed a replacement but kept Ismael on as a Special Advisor; he will be allowed to retire honorably this summer with a pension more lucrative than he could ever have expected (it will amount to about $100 per month; before the war, he earned fewer than $10).

This is what Ismael said: “Freedom of opinion will save us. It is freedom of opinion that allows us to talk as we do today. Everyone’s opinion matters and must be heard.”

I was silently cheering.

“But some opinions can harm the children and our schools. It is these opinions we must forbid.”

And my disappointment rose again.

---

3. This one is simpler and different. Or perhaps not so simple. I think there is something underlying it.

After the Symposium, I was at my computer finishing projects that I must complete or hand off before I leave here. Across the room at her own computer was Heba. She is another of our translators. 23 years old, usually shy, fairly naïve, but with surprising flashes of heat and insight.

Heba logged on to her computer then asked me: “What this means?” (that is an exact quotation).

“What means what?”

“This,” she said. “It says, ‘Your password will expire in five days. Would you like to change it now?’”

“It means you have to change your password.”

“No. It asks me if I like to.”

I said, “It’s just being polite. You don’t have to change it today, but you will have to change it before five days or you will be locked out.”

“You mean I have to change it? I don’t want to change it!”

“Yes, Heba,” I said, chuckling a bit, because we have similar exchanges frequently. “You have to change it.”

That did it. She couldn’t understand it or bear it. She yelled out: “This is not Democratty!”

That’s how she said it. “Democratty.”

I think it’s the loudest I’ve laughed since I’ve been here.

---

Will the peg fit in the hole? I don’t really know, but I’m certain it’s been worth trying.

[apoger]

Thank you for spending the time and effort to bring us that fascinating story. It will be interesting to see what the people of Iraq do with their new options.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

They'll do what human beings always do with a bounty of options: throw most of them away to avoid the difficulty of choosing between them.