The Conditions of Democracy in Iraq.

Jump to First Reply
newnew
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
As a reply to a previous question made by drewprops, I've tried to put down a few thought on what could be done in order to change the sorry mess that Iraq is in. Since the original thread was about another topic, and degraded to nothing after the question was posted, I decided to start another thread on this subject.



I've earlier stated that I think installing a democracy in Iraq is unlikely to be a success in the foreseeable future.



Michael J. Sodaro, a professor in political Science at Columbia University, has outlined ten factors that are often pointed to as preconditions for democracy:



- a Functioning state institutions

- an elites committed to democracy

- national wealth, private enterprise

- a stable middle class

- support among disadvantaged for democracy

- a "civic culture"

- education

- homogeneous society

- and a favorable international environment



I'm not going to explore all of these conditions, as I'm not educated in the field. But as far as I can tell these conditions align pretty well with my own assessments of the situation in Iraq.



In my view the "desire" for democracy is the most important factor. For such a desire to be present a certain representative part of the people have to be educated in the what democracy actually is. They're not. One has to remember that the system of government in the area has always been that of a strong leader. the word "free", as in "free from oppression" does not have the direct link to democracy in the arab states, as it has here.

Getting rid Saddam in the mind of the average iraqi does not equal a democracy, with an independent system of justice and so on. The parts of the iraqi people most schooled in the principles of democracy are a small exiled elite, and the kurdish minority in the north, where communism seems to be even more popular.



The next factor natural to examine is the different ethnical groups of iraq. When Iran states it will only accept a government based on the wishes of the iraqi people, make no mistake about their intentions.

The majority of the iraqi people are shi'a, and a shi'a regime is likely to be more iran than us-friendly. Especially considering the fate of the shi'as of the south during the last gulf-war.



The list of obstacles goes on. I won't even go into the issues of clan-based society or the geo-political problems of a democracy situated in the middle of a host of countries were regimes would feel threatened.



The issue at hand was how to make a democracy actually work in Iraq. A much harder question to answer than to simply list the obstacles. Here are a few thoughts:



Economy and society

Iraq has seen a huge urbanization since its establishment. This could be an important factor in making the population break out of their traditional clan-ties. A modernization of farming methods and trade could have an equal effect.

I think a democratic system of government would only have chance of succeeding if the immediate economical and material gains from it were evident. As much as one might like it or not, our democratic system is very much linked with wealth.

To re-establish the trust of the west, a large and long-lasting aid campaign in iraq would be required. This aid should be especially focused on education, infra-structure and development of iraqi industry (no, not us industry in iraq).



If we look at South-Korea or Taiwan, whom are only recently starting to function as democracies, I think its obvious that consumerism and industrial development has more to do with it than anything else.

Now how many years has it taken, and how stable are they?



Tradition and Education

If the iraqis are to accept the ideas of democratic theory, they have to accept it as their own. Two examples springs to mind, India had an intellectual exchange with england and the other commonwealth countries that brought a lot of western philosophy to the indian intellectual elite.

In the Mid-East, the palestinian people have a highly educated level among its people, both abroad and locally. Partially this is a result of the numbers of refugees spread across the world, but it is also because of the long-lasting cultural exchange and cooperation with european countries and the US.

Also the presences of Israel (and israeli arabs) with it's high standard of education should not be underestimated.

So while I have no direct solution to how the issue of planting the intellectual "desire" for democracy in the Iraqi people. I have no doubt that a long and friendly cooperation between iraqi and western institutions of education, culture and science is important.



ethnic conflicts

The kurds have long been a neglected and oppressed, also very much in "democratic Turkey". If you want this minority to support the establishment of a democratic rule in Iraq, concessions have to be made to the kurdish minorities in all the countries in the region.

A united kurdish territory with a degree of self-rule (but without changing the current sovereign borders), would be an important stabilizing factor. The kurds are allies now, but will soon be fierce enemies if given the short-end of the bargain again.



mid-east politics

The issue of Israel and the Palestinians is by many considered the essential problem in arab-western relations. As long as "democratic" Israel is considered the enemy by most arabs, and seeing how the palestinians are treated. This system of government will not seem desirable.

If a solution could be reached in Israel, were the palestinians gained their state, achieved peaceful relations with israel and had a reasonably pluralistic system themselves. Then democracy would have another ring to it. Right now "democracies" seem less able to provide security and peace, and a protection from injustice, than the current arab leaderships.



Lastly, One has to remember that most arabs see Saddams Regime as being installed by the west in the first place. I would like to repeat some thoughts of the chief editor of a large Syrian Newspaper. He said that once Bagdad is besieged, and the war is at a stalemate, a direct negotiation between the exile iraqi democratic groups, who wisely have stayed outside the direct conflict, and the Saddam regime, of the terms of regime change. Without any american meddling. Is the way to go if you want the iraqi people to accept a new government.



Unless you want take the city by force, kill thousands of iraqis, and stay there for decades that is...
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 46
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    You'll never get an answer. There are no alternatives from them, only FUD.



    To get alternatives you have to think, hell you might even have to compromise. And those things require maturity.




    Well, got a comment?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 2 of 46
    drewpropsdrewprops Posts: 2,321member
    [i]I had to go back to the original thread to refresh my memory on the topic at hand as a weekend setting up a perlscript seems to have erased my own short term memory. Woof.[i]



    In case you missed that "other" thread, New stated:

    Quote:

    I'm saying it would be best if they were givien the chance to liberate themselves. And for that to happen certain conditions need to be present



    My question to New was:

    Quote:

    What are those conditions?



    Now, just to be clear, at no time did I assert an opinion as to whether Iraq should be turned into a democracy. I also did not disagree that reform from within is almost always best for a nation. I did express disappointment that the United Nations had yet again demonstrated itself to be an ineffective organization; unwilling to enforce its own rulings.





    So, if we're using Professor Sodaro's Ten Points as a starting point for this thread, we'd have to evaluate the populace of Iraq as to their "readiness" for democracy. We'd need to consider:



    Urban Iraq

    Agrarian Iraq

    Secular Iraq

    Religious Iraq

    Modern Iraq

    Traditional Iraq

    [i]can you kids name some more kinds of Iraq?[/];P





    more later - just got a call
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 3 of 46
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Quote:

    Well, got a comment?



    Comment on how you didn't answer my question?



    You're talking about how to make democracy work in Iraq. The post you quoted me is out of context and isn't referring to an alternative way of bringing democracy to Iraq.



    I was talking about an alternative to war, not alternatives about what to do *after* Saddam is ousted.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 4 of 46
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    Comment on how you didn't answer my question?



    You're talking about how to make democracy work in Iraq. The post you quoted me is out of context and isn't referring to an alternative way of bringing democracy to Iraq.



    I was talking about an alternative to war, not alternatives about what to do *after* Saddam is ousted.




    You were, in your normal, full of yourself, kind of way implying that I would not answer drewprops. Because you obviously think my only goal is to diss the US.



    I'm sorry for quoting you out of context. If you tried to have more context, it might have easily been avoided.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 5 of 46
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    So how were the Iraqi people going to "liberate themselves"?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 6 of 46
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    So how were the Iraqi people going to "liberate themselves"?



    Well, if we exclude democracy from the equation.



    A liberation could have taken place;

    - If an opposition party or a political movement got strong enough to make a regime change.

    - If the current regime imploded on itself (not uncommon to happen in the region).

    - If reform was achieved within the government.

    + Other possibilities.



    Each of these outcomes again have their own preconditions. Some are the same as the above mentioned. But some might be different. If you really don't care about the democratic part, then an iranian sponsored Shi'a revolt might be considered a "liberation". Depends on how you define it. Listening to your administration, I thought democracy was an obvious part. How else are you going to justify a liberation?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 7 of 46
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    new:



    Quote:

    A liberation could have taken place;

    - If an opposition party or a political movement got strong enough to make a regime change.




    So a revolution, then?

    Why would that be better than the US/UK going in to Saddamize the regime?



    Quote:

    - If the current regime imploded on itself (not uncommon to happen in the region).



    And highly unlikely considering how great Saddam is at retaining power. This isn't a chump we're dealing with.



    Quote:

    - If reform was achieved within the government.



    hehe

    That's cute. I pinch your cheeks.



    Quote:

    Listening to your administration, I thought democracy was an obvious part. How else are you going to justify a liberation?



    Am I in the administration? I would like that but I'm not, unfortuantely.



    Liberation from Saddam != installed democracy. Now, that very well may happen but to me liberation means Saddam and his regime out w/ sanctions gone. I don't care what kind of government it is if it is good for the people of Iraq. Lots of food, oil flowing out to our greedy selves so they can get money to buy food and medicine and infrastructure. A benevolent monarchy can be a great thing for a rebuilding nation.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 8 of 46
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat



    New: "A liberation could have taken place;

    - If an opposition party or a political movement got strong enough to make a regime change."




    So a revolution, then?

    Why would that be better than the US/UK going in to Saddamize the regime?




    A: Because it would have legitimacy among the people, the US/UK invasion does not.



    B: Because there would have been a movement ready to take over. Now there is not.



    Quote:

    New: "- If the current regime imploded on itself (not uncommon to happen in the region)."



    And highly unlikely considering how great Saddam is at retaining power. This isn't a chump we're dealing with.



    It has happened to a lot of comparable regimes.



    Quote:

    New: "- If reform was achieved within the government."



    hehe

    That's cute. I pinch your cheeks.




    It's no impossible scenario. It's your official strategy against most other enemies.



    Quote:

    Am I in the administration? I would like that but I'm not, unfortuantely.



    Liberation from Saddam != installed democracy. Now, that very well may happen but to me liberation means Saddam and his regime out w/ sanctions gone. I don't care what kind of government it is if it is good for the people of Iraq. Lots of food, oil flowing out to our greedy selves so they can get money to buy food and medicine and infrastructure. A benevolent monarchy can be a great thing for a rebuilding nation.




    Heh, fairytales, Grove, fairytales...
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 9 of 46
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    new:







    So a revolution, then?

    Why would that be better than the US/UK going in to Saddamize the regime?





    I know! I know!



    Because if the people rise up themselves in a popular mass movement and overthrow their hated government they don't have to worry about having the shit bombed out of them and being humiliated by an invasion and then having an American ex-general who is the president of the company that makes Patriot missiles installed as Governer!!!



    That's it!!!!!!!



    Easy.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 10 of 46
    Oh yeah, I mean political and social legitimacy, blah blah blah, all of that.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 11 of 46
    Which is why the UN ****ed up by not supporting the uprising a decade ago when it had massive popular support and internal legitimacy in many quarters. Another grave error on the UN's part and reason to disrespect that feeble institution.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 12 of 46
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath

    Which is why the UN ****ed up by not supporting the uprising a decade ago when it had massive popular support and internal legitimacy in many quarters. Another grave error on the UN's part and reason to disrespect that feeble institution.



    Feeble is too light a word. I prefer castrated.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 13 of 46
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath

    Which is why the UN ****ed up by not supporting the uprising a decade ago when it had massive popular support and internal legitimacy in many quarters. Another grave error on the UN's part and reason to disrespect that feeble institution.



    Bush I had to promise not to go to Baghdad in order to get arab support.



    But, hey, why should facts get in the way of destructive political views? Let's blame everything bad on the UN, and give the US the credit for everything 'good.'
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 14 of 46
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath

    Which is why the UN ****ed up by not supporting the uprising a decade ago when it had massive popular support and internal legitimacy in many quarters. Another grave error on the UN's part and reason to disrespect that feeble institution.



    the problem is that the uprising was probably not even mature yet back then. They revolted because they were urged to. Then they were stabbed in the back. This set back the opposition in the south to year zero...
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 15 of 46
    Quote:

    Bush I had to promise not to go to Baghdad in order to get arab support.



    Yes and what does that prove? Is your point is that the UN (And the US being party to the UN S.C.) sacrificed the right thing to do and a tangible solution (or at least an oppurtunity at one that is better than any of the present or past alternatives) for the political interests of a bunch of pseudo-dictators, kings and oligarchies? And in the process left a dictator in power, installed 12 years of economic hardship, and let that dictator crush his own people while standing idly by. That sounds like an absolutely wonderful solution. If so I'm not sure how that undermines my point that the UN and UN S.C. is a flaming piece of shit.



    Quote:

    But, hey, why should facts get in the way of destructive political views? Let's blame everything bad on the UN, and give the US the credit for everything 'good.'



    Which facts did I ignore? The political ones that played into the situation? The shameful actions by Father Shrubbery in particular voicing support for hte uprising and then twiddling his thumbs? The decade of support by the Gipper and friends prior to 8/2/90? The choice to let Saddam slink away by having some two bit general sign the ceasefire rather than doing the proper thing and forcing Saddam to come down in shameful defeat and sign the ceasefire in a tent full of the UN participant countries while his countrymen watched?



    Yawn, you pegged me wrong, my name isn't Republican Hawk. But the reality is that the UN came up short and the US and Father Shrubbery as a driving party to that body as one of the five and one of the fifteen and an advocate of the uprising respectively get massive culpability demerits as well. As always they should be shot. Those who advocate that the UN is the only body that can sanction the use of force internationally, and there are many of those people out and about these days, need to recognize who that line of thinking leads them to when placing the blame for the failure to support the legitimate and viable attempt at redressing the situation that the Iraqis tried which lacked only the military weaponry necessary to enact the change they desired.



    Quote:

    the problem is that the uprising was probably not even mature yet back then.



    Nonsense. The only thing that wasn't mature was the military technology of the people in revolt.



    Quote:

    They revolted because they were urged to. Then they were stabbed in the back. This set back the opposition in the south to year zero...



    The encouragement didn't hurt, it misled them to believe that their firepower disparity would be aided by the US/UN. But the actual reasons for the revolt had nothing to do with the encouragement.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 16 of 46
    agent302agent302 Posts: 974member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Outsider

    Feeble is too light a word. I prefer castrated.



    That's cuz you all keep viewing the UN as an institution in its own right. It's clearly not. It's just a grouping of nation-states who only agree on things that don't matter and disagree when important decisions need to be made.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 17 of 46
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by agent302

    That's cuz you all keep viewing the UN as an institution in its own right. It's clearly not. It's just a grouping of nation-states who only agree on things that don't matter and disagree when important decisions need to be made.



    That's an astute observation! I think I'll make it my sig.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 18 of 46
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by New

    B: Because there would have been a movement ready to take over. Now there is not.



    And boy-oh-boy, don't we know how successful revolutionary governments are against brutal, murderous dictators!



    But Gore had your idea in the presidential debates, he called for "robust support" of revolutionary groups within Iraq.



    That way you can just arm other people, have no control over their actions and act like you aren't involved. Kind of like Reagan in South America.



    Oh wait, that was bad wasn't it?



    Quote:

    It has happened to a lot of comparable regimes.



    Like...



    Quote:

    It's no impossible scenario. It's your official strategy against most other enemies.



    What's good for one is not necessarily good for the other.



    Hassan:



    Quote:

    Because if the people rise up themselves in a popular mass movement and overthrow their hated government they don't have to worry about having the shit bombed out of them and being humiliated by an invasion and then having an American ex-general who is the president of the company that makes Patriot missiles installed as Governer!!!



    And tens of thousands, most likely hundreds of thousands of civilians dead as they fight Saddam's tank divisions with rocks and AK-47s. w00t!

    And not even a good chance that the revolution will work and everyone who participated is subsequently slaughtered by death squads.



    DOUBLE w00t!



    What do we care, right, they're just dirty Iraqis!





    Unless you're arguing that we should support the revolution militarily, in which case I don't know why you're arguing against this war.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 19 of 46
    agent302agent302 Posts: 974member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Outsider

    That's an astute observation! I think I'll make it my sig.



    It's just a basic realist look at IR. I've taken classes!
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 20 of 46
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat



    And tens of thousands, most likely hundreds of thousands of civilians dead as they fight Saddam's tank divisions with rocks and AK-47s. w00t!




    I was thinking more like Romania, which was pretty fierce, but where fewer people died than have already been killed by American bombs, indiscriminately, women and children.







    With the advantage that they didn't get to be humiliated, resentful, and then governed by an American ex-general who is the President of the company that makes Patriot missiles.







    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat





    And not even a good chance that the revolution will work and everyone who participated is subsequently slaughtered by death squads.





    You're quite right. This hypothetical revolution is a disaster!







    Tell you what: let's just pretend that my version of the hypothetical Iraqi revolution was the successful one.







    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat



    What do we care, right, they're just dirty Iraqis.





    You're arguing that American military intervention is BETTER than an Iraqi revolution. These "brown people" who can't be trusted to revolt properly, can't even get it together to decide their own destiny. Arabs are like children, are they not? In need of a proper masser, with the whip and all.







    It's for their own good.







    No. This isn't a neo-colonial enterprise at all. Not a bit of it.



     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.