I believe it’s important to remember that democracy is a product of western civilization (thouh it is now spread widely around the world). The Iraqi people is a very proud people and they have lived very isolated for a long time. Even though I am totally convinced that democracy is the best political system to date I think that quite a lot of Iraqi people would like to solve their problems in an “Iraqi kind of way” once Saddam is gone rather than having democracy just “forced” upon them by the invading coalition.
This is a thought that has crossed my mind, and if you people think it’s wrong or have considered any other aspect of this possible problem, feel free to critique my post harshly =), I’m mostly here to learn anyway.
The Iraqis will not be given the opportunity to solve their problems in an “Iraqi way”, by which I suppose you mean some kind of homegrown political system, possibly a Taliban-style theocracy?
They will only be given the opportunity to establish a Western-style democracy.
It’s really important that they not just hold elections as soon as possible, and it’s good that they seem to realize that. Elections by themselves just don’t make for a working democracy, and in the abscence of a stable political order, they can be disasterous (re: as they were in 50s Taiwan). You need to build up civil and pluralistic institutions of political access. Iraq doesn’t have those. It has never had those. It’s going to take time, and even then there’s no guarantee.
This is actually a fairly exciting test case for people in my field, who are heavy into developing world finance, decentralization, and democratization. We’ll see who the administration listens too though in going about this: the economic planners they seem to bend towards aren’t exactly the most respected thinkers in these fields.
One note I’ve heard: a lot of moderate Iraqis think that having a woman rule is probably a mistake, particularly after a humiliating blow to national pride (utterly regardless of how much Saddam is hated). Incredibly sexist? Sure. But that’s something we have to deal with, and this is going to be seen as a sort of double-castration.
carlinhos - from my understanding, you are totally correct. I have spoken to several Iraqi colleagues about this. They believe it should take about six months for them to get a stable administration in place.
Unlike Afghanistan, Iraqis traditionally have been far more civilised (ie less tribally factioned - though of course there are still tribal areas, like the Marsh arabs, etc), and extremely well educated. Just a few decades ago Arabs from all over the region were sent to Baghdad for education. Iraq is a place of ancient history, culture and learning - a true cradle of civilisation.
The “west” is going to have to tread extremely carefully about how they “impose” “democracy” on Iraq. Iraqi people are proud, strong, cultured and (at least the older generation before sanctions) extremely well educated. There are many expat Iraqis all over the world who are highly educated, experienced, well travelled - many of these will probably return. They will want to find their own way - and I think we can be confident in them that they will find it. Again, we are liberating them, not conquering them. That means we are also giving them back freedom to rule over themselves.
On a side note, feminism is really not a big issue here, it’s not like Afghanistan with its patriarchal tribal systems. Sure, Iraq is not going to be like Scandinavia in terms of the acceptance of women leaders, not yet. But one day it will be, and probably quite soon. Don’t forget that goverments all over the Middle East region - in far more “traditional” (ie patriarchal, conservatively religious) societies - are empowering and enfranchising their women. They are encouraging them to stand for public office, have educations, be businesswomen, etc. What holds the women back is their families, and family tradition and culture, it is not governments that hold them back.
istara - given our conversations elsewhere regarding the manipulation of the media in the Arabic World, oddly and somewhat ironically, this is an example of where the Americans are going to have to be quite forceful - that is, they are going to have to use the media in a very “banevolent” manner to disseminate the message of “positive rebuilding” as efficiently as possible.
I’m not suggesting for a minute that the Americans should “totally control and manipulate” Iraqi media - rather, they should enforce it’s plurality and it’s freedom to say whatever it wants. But it should also be the right of the governing powers to ALSO demand, and get, free TV airtime anytime they want, to issue public information and freedom of choice matters. I suggest this last caveat as being an example of a “banevolent guiding force” as it were.
I honestly believe, that given the opportunity, Iraqi’s would willingly embrace, and enshrine a truly open, non-political, non-religious media. It would allow Iraqi’s an excellent opportunity for the TRUTH about the world, the REAL TRUTH, to enter their lives. But I suspect the Imams would be totally freaked out. It’s no coincidence that the Imams of the Arabic World are most influential where they ALSO have the media as a manipulation tool at their disposal.
Can anyone seriously believe that we intend to install democracy in Iraq? It may indeed be true that Our Leader believes it, believes that with Saddam gone Iraq will instantly morph into a nation of shopkeepers and Starbucks entrepreneurs, awaiting only the moment to rush to the polls to express thier fervent solidarity with American policy and opinion.
But the hard-eyed men who coddle his opinions like eggs have no such illusions. Would we permit an Iraqi election if it were likely to result in an Islamic Republic, Iranian style? Of course not. After careful consideration and vetting, we will offer the Iranian people Tweedledum and Tweedledee, whose distinction lies only in which is the more enthusiastic proponent of American policy.
Either that, or admit that our alleged mission of bringing democracy to Iraq is just so much smoke and mirrors. Seems to me you can’t have it both ways.
While DDG has linked much of the official administration’s plan, there remains some skepticism within the State Department. See this recent article from the LA Times.
Our “friends” in the region may also feel threatened by a true democracy in Iraq. It is fair to say that invading Iraq and toppling the regime will likely be the “quick and easy” part of this operation.
The US has been in contact with the Iraqi National Congress for many years, and one of the leaders lives near here. I cannot for the life of me get a link to work for a recent AP article but if you can google “Iraqi National Congress” and one of the first links to pop will be from Boston.com, “Iraqi opposition leader says dissidents poised for Saddam’s fall.” Worth a read. That in itself though illustrates a problem…we are aware of what needs to be done and know the players involved, but there’s a simple question of how much say in the new regime should a coalition of expats have with respect to the people in-country.
We’re treading a fine line IMO, but not an uniformed one. I believe we will have the UN alongside again by the time any democratic process is set up, if not by next week or so to handle the various humanitarian crises.
The plan is already in place, with several months of US administration, followed by a interim coalition (INC fits the bill to a large degree), followed by elections proper.
Won’t be fast, may not be pretty, but in the end, it will work.
Oh, I hardly think you need worry about that. GeeDubya would rather nail his pecker to a tree and set the tree on fire than ask for help from Jimmy.
But they might. And if they did, Jimmy would do it. Best damn ex-President ever, bar none. 'Course, GeeDubya might be a better one, and the sooner he gets his chance to prove it, the better.
The Kurds have managed to set up a pretty well functioning democracy over the last decade, haven’t they? From what I understand, the Kurdish region protected by the U.S. is fairly well developed.
Iraq will have a democracy to the north - Turkey, and a quasi-democracy to the east, in Iran. And if Iran finally gets its act together and gets rid of the control of the mullahs, we could see the center of power in the middle east shift to an area with three democracies bordering each other.
This will put democratic pressure on Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and other countries in the region. And a settling of the Palestinian problem (possible once the U.S. is in a position to guarantee border security for Israel, and the threat of Saddam is gone), could cause Democracy to flourish in other areas.
In 20 years, this war could be seen as the transformative event that brings stability to the middle east.
More likely, it will help, but there will still be problems for a long time to come. But at the very least, 100,000 Iraqis a year won’t be dying in a brutal dictatorship.
Well, that certainly sketches out the “best case” scenario, one that might very well have been “cut and paste” from Our Leaders letters to Santa. It may even happen, as a pessimist, I am seldom so happy as when I’m wrong. And I’m sure that Sam AKA Conan the Canadian would be perfectly happy to have us all accept that the deaths that result from US imposed sanctions are entirely Goddam Hussein’s. Bit of a stretch, but there is scant likelihood of changing his mind on that, so I’ll merely note it and pass along.
And yes, the Kurds are rather functional in terms of self-governance. Regretably, that is as much a stumbling block as it is a blessing. US policy is, in the last form in which it metastized, that the Kurds will be folded into a federal Iraq, so that they not trouble our dear friends, the Turks. Their eagerness to comply with our wishes is, shall we say, lacking. Perhaps we can send Henry Kissinger as our envoy to the Kurds, as a way of expressing our kindly and avuncular concern. No doubt they would be glad to get thier hands on…glad to see him again.
Btw, did you mean that 100 000 iraqis a year dies because of the brutal dictatorship or did you mean 100 000 iraqis dies every year and iraq is a brutal dictatorship?
