Not US style representative fixed term government, but more actually democracy.
A plebecite every month on the various topics:
Should we support the government or hold new elections?
Should we split off the Kurds?
Should we give everyone a share of stock in a national oil company, that they could sell to the highest bidder?
Should we have nightly curfews after every bombing?
Should we recognize the governments of Israel, Hamas, Afghanistan?
Keeping people focused on their own power seems a reasonable way to combat the anger toward their goverment and ours.
I don’t think so. The Sunnis would still be outnumbered, lose, and therefore still be furious. The Shi’a would still want revenge for the last 25 years and the recent attacks in particular.
I doubt Iraqis care much about their own government, and even less about democracy - I’d expect them to be focused on survival and their basic needs. The voters and government can say whatever they want in Iraq, it doesn’t seem to matter.
I think a little more greed might improve things. If they created a yearly dividend paid directly to every man woman and child based on the profitability of the oil industry, I think it might help reduce the violence. If every citizen knew that they would be paid more if the wellheads and pipelines weren’t blown up, or the workers kidnapped, or the truck convoys weren’t attacked, there is a much more potent motivation to either stop doing those things yourself, or withhold support from those who do.
The collectivist nature of their culture would make it tough for democracy to function at what we might consider an acceptable level. People are more concerned that their tribe or religious group is in power than to do what would be good for the country. This is why strong leaders tend to take and keep power. Only some one strong enough to overcome these tribal/religious differences can effectively hold power and keep the country stable.
A yearly state oil dividend for the people works fine in Alaska . . . but I think a society needs to be a lot more peaceful, stable and orderly than Iraq is now, before such a system can be organized in the first place. Especially considering the number of refugees and displaced Iraqis, within Iraq and abroad. How can you cut everyone a dividend check if you’re not sure where they are, or even whether a given person is alive or dead?
That’s right, a UN supported Government in which the institutions were directly elected by it’s people is somehow regarded as a Nazi like Vichy puppet state.
Some sort of strong government that Sunnis believe will protect their interests against the Shia, and while the Shia accept as a legitimate power.
The rise of a strong middle class and infrastructure. The people need to have something to lose. The oil trust idea is a good one. Give them more money, help them build schools, power plants, businesses, and financial connections that cross sectarian lines. If a Shiite garment manufacturer relies on a Sunni cloth factory, they both have a vested interest in protecting their infrastructures. Note that this has gone a long way towards easing tensions between Jews and other countries with which they have economic relations. No reason it couldn’t work in Iraq.
Keeping Iran and Syria from screwing up the works. Again, strong government needed, or continued U.S. protection.
Will it happen? I strongly doubt it. But there’s still an outside chance, and so long as there’s even a small chance to reverse all the Bush administration screwups and get it right, they should try. The alternative is devastating to both the middle east and U.S. security.
:rolleyes: I’m tired of the constant barrage of criticism thrown at the set up of the Iraqi Government, if you have a better way in which a proportional representative government will work, after we’d invaded, I’d like to hear it. But since I’m usually thrown the ‘chickenhawk’ remarks, I doubt I’ll get a coherent answer back right?
Obviously offensive to me, since I said it was offensive. I find it offensive that comparisions to Nazi occupied puppet states are used to compare the Iraqi Government, even though it’s people elected those people into office. Which was validated by the UN.
So why are such comparisons made if no comparison is there? People like Triskadecamus make these assertions because they see nothing positive at all coming from the removal of Saddams regime. So even if the invasion was wrong, and has made mistakes, generalisations to WWII era puppet regimes is offensive and wrong.
IIRC, during the Umayyad dynasty, Jews and Christians living in conquered Muslim land paid higher taxes than Muslims; after a few years of that, the result was not too unexpected: lots of the infidels converted to Islam to pay less taxes*.
Yes, I agree that money is not a factor for some, but we are human; money is a strong factor for many. (But this is IMHO only valid if there is peace after a conquest and the conqueror shows to be able to manage things)
Problem was that this in the long run caused the income of the caliph to be less, and it was a reason why the dynasty did fall!
I would disagree. I don’t think the conflict in Iraq is much more about religion than the conflict in Northern Ireland was. The dividing lines are religious, but the conflict isn’t motivated by religion to any great degree.
Ah, I see - you’ve got no particular answer for the government’s failings, you’re just tired of the criticism and it offends you.
Sorry about that, but while the government seems to be set up nicely, it has completely failed to keep the country safe, might be uncomfortably tight with Iran and hasn’t done much to reign in the Shi’ite militias. (Maybe they’ve changed their minds on the last issue, but I’m not sold on it and it might be too late anyway.) That doesn’t mean the government is a success, because it’s not a success. And when the American government is saying the Iraqi government is depending too heavily on the US military, you haven’t got much ground to stand on. The UN’s approval doesn’t mean anything if there is no security in Iraq. The fact that the elections were democratic doesn’t mean anything if the government is winking at the murder of some of Iraq’s citizens and if the people are deprived of basic necessities.
You’re offended by a comparison you made up. The only person who has mentioned Nazis is you. Since the Iraqi government would not have been set up if we hadn’t invaded, and it wouldn’t exist right now if we weren’t occupying the country, it’s pretty freaking obvious why some people call it a puppet government. Nazism doesn’t enter the picture.
There’s still a functioning government, there are still lots of people trying to make a civil society happen. There are still many peaceful areas in Iraq. Commerce is continuing.
What facts make you think there isn’t even a slim chance of success?
Many of the Iraqi people do so regard it, and what else can you expect? Elections or no, they’ll never think of it as their government until it stands up to the U.S. over something important and make it stick.