Should Iraq become a Democracy?

fran441

Putting politics aside for a bit, there is something that concerns me about the future of Iraq. US forces are supposed to transfer control of the country to an Iraqi government in June, but what kind of government will they have?



The two options on the table are to set up a democracy, with rule by the people, or a type of shared power government, where a minority group has about as much power as the majority of the people in the country.



Both options have troubling drawbacks, but they appear to be the only 'solutions' at the moment.



If Iraq is set up as a true democracy, one with an assembly elected by the people, and a President elected by the people, the clerics in Iraq will be the ones taking power, and Iraq would basically become like Iran, and as we all know, terrorists seem to strive in that kind of environment.



The other option is a shared power government, where you'd have Shi'ite muslims, Sunni muslims, and Kurds all represented fairly equally. On the surface, this seems like it could work out better since it would be more difficult to pass laws based on religious beliefs, but it would also create more conflict inside the country, with the Shi'ite clerics trying to gain complete control of Iraq (which might lead to even more internal strife and breed more hatred of America).



Also, if Iraq does not become a democracy, we are basically saying that we don't want the people to elect their own leaders, rather that we want a power shared assembly to elect one, and as a result, the President won't have the same power as one chosen by the people. At least Afghanistan had the Northern Alliance which had some power to begin with. That doesn't seem to be the case in Iraq.



What do you think needs to be done here? I think both options have some definite problems, but there obviously has to be some kind of free elections. The question is, what happens if the elections lead to changes in the country that we don't agree with?

dmband0026

I think the US will have enough influence in the election process that we can avoid having Iran #2. You are correct however, this is somewhat of a difficult situation. All know is anything will be better than Saddam.

aapl

If the each of the 3 main ethnic religious groups were to manage their affairs autonomously, and not forced to comglamorize their nationalities into a "unified Iraq", then a representative government in each of these autonomous areas would work very well, I believe. Although I'm a little concerned about the Shiite South, but if managed properly, it could lead to the destabilization of the Mullas in Iran.

scott

Separation of Power, Bill of Right, Federalism. All of these things come together in the US to assure that individuals are protected and no one establishment dominates the others.



I would hope that these things can come together to create the balance that's needed to keep Iraq free and prosperous.

brussell

Fareed Zakaria has written a lot about this (this book, for example). He points to a lot of evidence that fast changes to Democracy tend to degenerate very quickly, whereas economic liberalization and respect for basic rights should come first to give people a stake in the system. Elections could be the worst thing we could do in this situation.

Quote:

We could, of course, hold elections in Iraq, hand over power and go home. But elections do not produce democracy. Consider Russia, where Vladimir Putin was elected but rules like an autocrat. He has forced his political opponents out of office, weakened other branches of government and intimidated the once free media into near-total silence. And he?s one of the success stories. In Venezuela, the elected demagogue Hugo Chavez has turned himself into a dictator, running his rich country into the ground. Eighty percent of Venezuelans now live below the poverty line. In Africa, 42 of the continent?s 48 countries have held elections in the last decade, but almost none of them have produced genuine democracy.

_ _ _ _ What is called democracy in the West is really liberaldemocracy, a political system marked not only by free elections but also the rule of law, the separation of powers and basic human rights, including private property, free speech and religious tolerance. In the West, this tradition of liberty and law developed over centuries, long before democracy took hold. It was produced by a series of forces?the separation of church and state, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Reformation, capitalism and the development of an independent middle class.

From this Newsweek article, a very good, opinionated read on this topic.

sammi jo

If Iraq is to hold holding genuine, fair, elections, (the way of democracy), then they must never install those Diebold "DRE" electronic voting machines for vote "counting". Iraq's "elections" were rigged under Saddam Hussein, but at least everyone knew their "votes" weren't worth the paper they were printed on. Using these DREs, their election results may well be as meaningless as under Saddam...although the illusion of democracy could provide some psychological comfort, as it does in many other places.



http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0309/S00150.htm

http://www.verifiedvoting.org/index.asp



This quote comes to mind regarding "democracy" (in Iraq or anywhere else for that matter).

Quote:

"It doesn't matter who gets the most votes in an election; it only matters who counts the votes." - Joseph Stalin

harald

The amount of academic discourse, theory and research into rapid democratisation is enormous. There's precedent, case studies and mountains of data.



Rummi doesn't care. Wolfowitz doesn't believe it. It doesn't make it wrong unfortunately. I hate these illiterate bastards.

scott

Quote:

Originally posted by Harald

The amount of academic discourse, theory and research into rapid democratisation is enormous. There's precedent, case studies and mountains of data.



Rummi doesn't care. Wolfowitz doesn't believe it. It doesn't make it wrong unfortunately. I hate these illiterate bastards.

I thought we were leaving politics out of it?

fran441

Quote:

I thought we were leaving politics out of it?

So did I.

scott

I think I heard/read/something that Iraq had a reasonable court system. One that was reasonable separate from the Bathist system that it could be reconstituted for the new government. But still if you get a court system that respects individual rights that only one small part. After all the US Supreme court does not have its own army to enforce its ruling. It just has to rely on the respect for the courts.





So maybe I just argued that Iraq needs a military that's out of politics, a police force that's fragmented (federal system), and enough people that respect the laws/courts that no one group will be able to corrupt the system.



I think I?m back where I started.

powerdoc

You made a good analysis Fran. Building a democracy in Irak, will be difficult and will requiere to do it by steps.



The first step, is to rebuild a state. Without a state the democracy means nothing. State means a police, an army, a judicial system, water electricity, health, telecommunications, roads ...

All this things neads to work. Not perfectly but to work.



The second step is to make a constitution. The constitution will be the guidelines of the Iraki democratia. They must be written carrefully and requires to be nearly consensual by all the ethnic group of Irak. Point two imply a collegial governement representating all these groups, and is not suitable with majority elections. Remember all groups must be represented. Otherwise, it will be civil war. This step will last until the constitution negociation will be finish. I fear that it may recquiere more than 6 months.



The third step, is the elections. Elections are based upon the constitution. In this step, the future of Irak will only belong to the Iraki themselves.



All this steps are important, and each step should not be performed until the precedent one is accomplished. Otherwise, the whole edifice will collapse.

splinemodel

I think that we should get out of there sooner if possible, and leave it up to the people of Iraq. If we set up a "puppet" state, there will be too much tension. It's really a situation that's going to be tough to "win."

chu_bakka

Especially since it doesn't look like we know what we're doing at the moment.



I'm sure BUsh will want to be pulling out just in time for next year's election.



I call it "Premature Iraqification." hehe



Gonna finish before she's ready.