Do we REALLY want free elections in Iraq?

Great Debates
1

Let’s say we take over Iraq successfully and help them rebuild their country, help them write a constitution that resembles ours etc…

So now it comes time for the first free election. The polls are monitored, no intimidation is happening. And the people elect (surprise, surprise) a person with blatant anti-american views who says that Iraq maintains it’s right to possess WMD.

Are we still the proponents for democracy and self determination in Iraq? Or are governments that are threatening to us simply not allowed to exist anymore?

2

We should be, but we rarely are. We tend – far more often than not – to support petty military dictators who appear to be our friends, rather than to support democracy even if they elect people who oppose us. Bah.

3

Why would their constitution resemble ours?

4

\

Because the US style of democracy is the only valid kind. Every truly democratic country on earth uses a system almost identical to that in America.

Look at Canada, Britain, Germany, France, Italy, and Switzerland for examples of this.

5

Japan is a democracy - a democracy based around a governmental structure the allies helped build, with constitutional rules limiting things like military size and structure.

I imagine the same thing will happen in Iraq. There won’t be elections until there is a governmental system set up and running, and the elections will simply hand the administration of it over to the elected leader.

But it won’t be a free-for-all. Certainly, the U.S. will certainly put strict limits on the types of things the Iraqi military can do, the types of weapons they can have, etc. And I’m sure there will be a pretty large U.S. garrison in place for a long, long time to make sure the country doesn’t fracture and that militants don’t take over the government and turn it radical.

Now, if the Iraqis elect a militant leader, so be it. Japan has had leaders who haven’t been all that friendly to the U.S. So has Germany. But they will still be constitutional limited in what actions they can take.

Just my guess as to how it will work out.

6

What? The Canadian and British political systems are nothing like the US political system, I can’t speak to the other countries you listed. And you do know that democracy didn’t originate with the US, don’t you?

7

GWB will allow free elections as long as the US Supreme Court has the final say in deciding who wins.:smiley:

8

Yes, I do. The statement was supposed to be ironic… a parody of those ignorant types who think of the US as the sole fount of righteousness.

As you say, the Canadian and British systems are parliamentary democracies with two houses, the lower elected and the upper not. Canada is a federation of provinces with individual single-house legislatures.

Italy, unlike the US, has a multi-party system where minority governments are not at all unusual.

Switzerland has a rather unique system of Cantons that provide a very differnent electoral system than the US has.

I know less about France and Germany, though politicians in France often last a lot longer in public view, since offices such as that of President have terms as long as seven years. Germany has no President, but instead a Chancellor, the role of whom I am not completely sure of.

9

Is there no way to change the constitution? If the government is really representative than I think that should be an option. Otherwise its a “You’re kind of free, but you don’t really have the full privileges of soveriegnty” kind of thing.
Which isn’t that big of a deal compared to conquering the country, but at least when we attacked Japan and invaded Germany I think we didn’t portray ourselves as “liberators”. We were out to defeat them plain and simple. Our stated goals had nothing to do with self determination. Of course we saw fit to install a democracy once we were there. But we didn’t have the impression that the innocent Japanese were cowering under the boot of Hirohito waiting for us to liberate them.

OK so another permanent military base like in Japan or Germany. What if this freely elected government ask us to leave? What if it starts cutting diplomatic ties and not permitting access to areas of the country?

How militant do you think we can stand?

10

Whew…Thank you.

11

At first I expected that the statement was too ridiculous to be taken seriously… but I guess it’s not unbelievable that someone might actually post what I did, and believe it. :frowning:

12

Oh, so that’s what a “democracy” is? Freedom of choice, limited by the kindly and avuncular guidance of the USA? A “pretty large” garrison of troops, say, 100,000? For a “long, long time”? As in, pretty much forever?

And the Muslim world shall gaze with delighted eyes upon this miracle of “democracy” and cry out with happy enthusiasm at the wonders wrought by America! And the Invisible Pink Unicorn shall frolic in the fields, once again, as the lamb lies down with the lion. Well, perhaps within the lion. Close enough.

13

errata: The Japanese model is probably pretty close. The Japanese are fully autonomous today, and they could certainly choose to amend their constitution to allow them to build an offensive military again.

But they wouldn’t have been allowed that in 1947. Over time, the U.S. and other allied nations loosened their grip on Japan as it showed itself to be self-governable and truly democratic. The same will happen in Iraq.

If Iraq continues to be radical and unstable, I imagine the limits placed on its government will be pretty severe. But if it stabilizes, shows a commitment to peace and democracy, the limits on its self-determination will be slowly removed.

I have more faith in the Iraqis than many on this board seem to have. There’s a distressing tendency on here to consider Arabs as being a bunch of medieval warring tribes who cannot be ‘civilized’. That’s a demeaning attitude, and it was the attitude the British had in the colonial era, when the Arabs were ‘wogs’, and Britain ruled them by divine right because they believed the savages were incapable of self-rule.

I have more faith than that. Iraq has a long history of civilization. The people are educated. There is a modern infrastructure. They have wealth. It is far more secular than the more radical states. It has a history of tolerance and civilization, the current thugs running the place notwithstanding.

In many ways, the middle east has been hijacked in the last fifty years by radicals amd extremists, fueled in part by the Israeli problem. Back during the Ottoman empire, the Middle East was a very different place. The Hashemites that ruled in the 50’s were much more tolerant than the thugs that came later.

The ‘center of gravity’ of the Middle East needs to be moved away from the radicals, and towards modern, reasonable leadership. People like the King of Jordan, who can trace his ancestry back to Muhammed but who seems sincerely interested in peace and democracy, could be the models for a new generation of middle eastern leadership.

My hope is that the Bin Ladens and the Wahabbists are not the start of a new shift towards radicalism in the middle east, but represent the last dying gasps of medievalism as the middle east joins the 21st century.

The middle east could once again become a center of culture and learning. With its natural oil wealth, it could rebuild itself into a glorious Islamic society. Unfortunately, there are too many there now who think the way to achieve that is by the sword. They are now being shown that that is a fight they cannot win. After the war is over, they will be shown the alternative in a new Iraq. I hope it becomes a shining example.

14

elucidator says:

So would you contend that Japan is not a democracy? That it isn’t free?

That’s exactly the way Japan was transitioned to Democracy.

And the key word is ‘transition’. You have to get from here to there. That means freedom WILL be limited, for some period of time. My guess is that how long that time period is will be entirely dependent on the Iraqis. I have faith that they will do well, and it won’t be as long as you think.

But just like there are still American troops in Japan and South Korea, there will still be American troops in Iraq for decades. That has nothing to do with whether or not the country is free. I think everyone would agree that South Korea, Japan, and Germany have all been free for a long time, despite large garrisons of American troops in each country.

15

A very sneaky argument, Sam. Those who have doubts about all this are motivated by a bias against “wogs” who “cannot be civilized”, whereas you are bouyed by “faith” and “hope”. Estimable virtues as they may be, I think they are hardly sufficient basis for us to judge Our Leader’s program sound and reasonable.

16

Well we aren’t going to let anyone take over the country who we dont approved of; the elections will most definetly be “supervised” and “funded” to meet OUR interest. Of course you and I wont be made aware of “the man behind the curtain”. We dont just spend multi-billions of dollars on a war which opens up opportunities of self- interest without taking advantage of them. Name a time in history when we fought a war just because it was “the right thing to do” and the US DIDN’T benefit in some way…

17

Grenada! Operation Urgent Fury! When America, under the leadership of The Ronnie, flung herself against platoons of crack elite commando bulldozer drivers from insidious Cuba, who were bent on building a huge runway for Soviet ICBMs. Or bombers. Or something.

18

Comparisons with Japan are naive and historically ignorant

Among other reasons:
1)Japan was and is a very homogenous society. Iraq is divided into several large groups who hate each other and have fought in the past.

2)The emperor was a potent symbolic figure who could provide legitimacy to the American occupation. No such figure exists in Iraq.

3)The Soviet Union was an enormous threat to post-war Japan which made them cling closely to the US for decades after the war. Nothing comparable for Iraq.

  1. Japan had an experience with some kind of constitutional government about 10-15 years before the American occupation. Iraq has been under military dictatorship for 45 years ie. the living memory of most Iraqis. It will be much more difficult to build a democracy.
    “But they will still be constitutional limited in what actions they can take.”
    Any Iraqi government can choose to amend the consitution or make a new constitution. What will the US do? Invade again?

The bottom line is that there is no way of making sure that a future Iraqi government doesn’t develop WMD. And if it’s a militant Shia regime which is close to Iran, it will be more dangerous to the US than the current Baathist regime.

19

This NBC news article is very interesting and relevent to much of what is being discussed here.

Iraq occupation a legal minefield

20

Thanks for the link rsa. Yet another difference with the post- Japan situation. The international and legal situation is very different. In addition to the Geneva conventions ,which will act as a constraint, there is the UN which wasn’t up and running at the time the Japanese occupation began. Today you can bet that France,German and Russia will use the UN to constrain American freedom in Iraq. And the other Arab regimes are going to be hostile to the rise of a Shia-majority democracy. With Japan most of the countries in the region were probably glad to see a pacifist Japan after the war.

The comparison becomes more and more ridiculous the more you think about it.