Iraq and democracy

[ImpyTimpy]

WMD's in Iraq aside let's look at the problem of democracy in Iraq. For example, say the people of Iraq decide they want a taliban like government in place. This is obviously going to breed more islamic fanatics and therefore cause further terrorism. Do we have the right to tell the Iraqis that they're not allowed to elect their leaders? If we do, this defeats the purpose of installing a democracy in Iraq - the people aren't free to choose their leaders. At the same time, if we do allow them to choose their government and a taliban like government is elected (which seems quiet likely) we're breeding more terrorists.

Comments, ideas?

[Agammamon]

Yes, if-IF, this Taliban-like government obeys one of the core rules of democracy. Namely that they hold regular and frequent elections and step down if voted out.

[ImpyTimpy]

So you're saying it'd still be ok to let them elect a fanatical government, even though it will breed more terrorists? Doesn't this defeat the purpose of war on terrorism though?

Originally posted by Agammamon
Yes, if-IF, this Taliban-like government obeys one of the core rules of democracy. Namely that they hold regular and frequent elections and step down if voted out.

[a_unique_person]

An interesting cartoon on the current situation in Iraq.

[fidiot]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
So you're saying it'd still be ok to let them elect a fanatical government, even though it will breed more terrorists? Doesn't this defeat the purpose of war on terrorism though?


Well if it's not ok, then what was the point of declaring that we will establish democracy in Iraq?

[ImpyTimpy]

That's exactly the problem. If you allow another fanatical government to be freely elected, you have given Iraq democracy, but took a step back from war on terrorism. This fanatical government might even install itself as a dictatorship. On the other hand, if you start telling the Iraqi people who they can and can't elect, you're not installing a democracy, just another form of dictatorship. It becomes a lose-lose situation. Countries against the United States accuse it of lying about trying to give freedom to Iraq, or alternatively terrorists are bred in a fanatical government.

Of course, the possibility is that a non-fanatical government will be establish, however, given the extreme nature of the country I find it unlikely.

Originally posted by fidiot


Well if it's not ok, then what was the point of declaring that we will establish democracy in Iraq?

[karl]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
So you're saying it'd still be ok to let them elect a fanatical government, even though it will breed more terrorists? Doesn't this defeat the purpose of war on terrorism though?


Depends. There is an often overlooked difference between fanatics and terrorists. The previous Taliban regime in Afghanistan oppressed its people but was fairly harmless to the rest of the world. As far as I understand, the direct damage it did was mainly from drug export. It did a lot of indirect damage, however, by allowing the terrorist organization al-Quaida to set up a base of operations inside the country.

For the most part, fanatics become terrorists only when they have no political power. If there is majority support for a "fanatical" government in Iraq, repressing it becomes more than a democratic problem. It could breed more terrorism than just letting things run their course. You can't make the fanatics go away by excluding them from the democratic process. Algeria tried that in 1991, with disastrous results.

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2001/html/10252.htm#gia