Free elections in an occupied nation.

Great Debates
1

I don’t want to discuss whether any of the following could have happened, or what would have happened instead. I am interested in examining attitudes in a specific circumstance, and the probable results for a democracy.

The scenario:

Your country, in my case The United States of America, has been occupied militarily, and its internal government interrupted by force, and a new government installed under the direction of a foreign power. The leaders of the government removed have been given trials, and their illegal acts documented in courts supervised by the occupying forces, and humanely punished by the laws in force at the time those leaders committed those illegal acts. Some have been acquitted, but most are at least guilty of complicity in frauds, and violations of citizens’ rights.

A large number of well respected people all originally citizens of your country now comprise an interim government, appointed by, and under the authority of the occupying power. The occupation leadership has promised to have free elections after two years of occupation. The occupying forces have been honorable, and have not committed atrocities, or used force except against force used against them. Some of the appointed officials are people you personally find honorable, and even admirable.

The two years pass. It’s Election Day. The interim government has, for the most part, declared themselves candidates for their current jobs, or other posts now being filled.

Now, I don’t want to talk about anything but your vote, not the way you think everyone else would vote.

So, here is my position.

I would never vote for any member of the interim government for any post. I would not vote for any candidate who sought, or passively accepted approval from the occupation forces, or the interim government. I would not change that decision in cases where the individual in specific cases was obviously the best qualified choice. I consider all members of the interim government to be collaborationists, and would support immediate efforts after the general election to have them expelled from the country for that reason.

I would support efforts to have all convictions issued by courts that operated under the aegis of the occupation forces overturned. I would do this even in cases where culpability and guilt were obvious, and heinous. I would insist my representatives repeal every act passed by the prior government, and hold an immediate new election to offer the original Constitution for popular ratification.

And, of course, I would volunteer to serve, protect, and defend that Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic.

Freedom cannot be imposed.

Tris

2

Let’s imagine that the country is France, the deposed government was Vichy, and the proposed collaborationist candidate is Chales De Gaule. It’s not so black and white. The question comes down to–was the previous government legitimate? And if not, was there any reasonable way for me to get rid of said illegitimate government?

If Pat Buchanan and Fred Phelps stage a coup and impose a fascist theocracy in America, I’d welcome a little help from the Canadian Military if they ousted the bastards.

3

A collaborator is one that ignores the wishes of the public to further the agenda of the occupying forces. If the occupation was benevolent and mostly in line with the original will of the people, then why is that bad?

Based on your scenario, all the occupying forces did was remove everyone from power. They commited no attocities, have been honorable and the interim govt are admirable in thier own rights. If they do nothing to original ideals which I hold to be correct, then all the occupiers did was remove my leaders. They make up for that by allowing me to elect new leaders.

I want to vote for the person that would be best suited and most capable to further the things I believe would make my country better. If that person happens to be in the interim govt, i will not hold that against him. If he served the interim govt as a puppet to the occupiers then he is not qualified to be my representative. However, if he did his best, made his case before the occupiers as best he could and only followed their orders when there was no other choice, then i would be glad to have him as my representative in govt. I would look at his record while he was in govt rather than his label.

4

Let’s imagine… Sadam was still in control…and women (and girls) were still being raped, and men and boys were still being detained and tortured…

5

I’d like to imagine proper paragraphing and arguments, actually.

Well, women and girls are still being raped, so that’s hardly a contrast, indeed in the present secruity environment it’s fairly clear that violent crime has exploded above Sadaam era levels.

Second, men and boys are still being detained, the torture part is questionable, but really the key is part one, insecruity.

Triska is, I might mention, quite right. Freedom can not be imposed. Warm fuzzy visions in re Iraq are simplistic.

However, it is what it is, and some steps will be taken to hopefully improve over a medium term.

6

And to follow through a little further; the occupying force is Muslim and inherently reflects the social, legal, moral and ethical characteristics of a Muslim society.

In addition, their Muslim ‘God’ plays a significant role in the government of that country, and their equally religious adherence to a particular economic model is almost wholly at odds with your history and culture. Yet it will be imposed on your society come hell or high water.

7

Are you referring to an actual occurence (in reverse, of course?) I don’t recall a case, in recent history at least, wherein the U.S. overthrew a Muslim country with an economic model “wholly at odds” with ours.

8

Look, I understand that the thread is a veiled complaint about the invasion of Iraq. If, say, Burma invaded Canada tomorrow and did the things outlined in the OP, then if I were a Canadian I’d agree with the OP. But if Canada invades Burma does the same reaoning hold? Tris talks about supporting the previous constitution…why does he assume that the previous constitution meant anything?

The extreme nationalism expressed by the OP is kind of mystifying. You’d really prefer a dictator of your own country, and would oppose a free government merely because it wasn’t indigneous to your own country? You’d really, seriously, and for real open up the jails and let real life rapists, real life murderers, real life torturers, real life totalitarians go free…simply because someone from another country incarcerated them? And that you’d support putting real life innocent people under their rule again? Just to make a point?

Bizarre.

I understand the point that the average Iraqi isn’t going to be appreciative of the US invasion, and to expect them to be appreciative is naive at best and guarantees the failure of the reconstruction at worst.

Freedom cannot be imposed? Cannot? Sure, if at the end of the day the majority wants tyranny, tyranny they shall have. Perhaps I’m naive, but I doubt that the majority in any country, no matter how bigoted or ignorant or brainwashed or fanatical truly wants tyranny.

Tyranny isn’t imposed because the people demand tyranny. Tyranny is imposed because people can’t figure out effective ways to oppose the tyranny, and the tyrants worm their way into power.

Please review the entire history of WWII as a counterpoint to the OP. Is the invasion of Iraq a replay of WWII? No of course not. But if you want to play by general example rules, you have to accept the consequences of a general example. Currently the country I’m living in is not tyrannical, so therefore I would not suport the invasion and overthrow of the government of my country. If it was, I would. But given that, I don’t always expect everyone else to make the same choice I would, although I wish they would and think they should. Simple, no?

9

I asked what I asked. I try, at times to put myself in the place of those I am told are my enemies, and contemplate how I would react, in their situation. In this situation, in even the best of circumstances I would not support a collaborationist government, and would join, or even lead a political effort to overthrow and replace that government with the government my nation had before the occupation.

I am not reflexively supportive of my current government. I find it surprising that people think I am, to be honest. I barely tolerate the rule of the legitimate government of the United States, but I do tolerate it. I have given the consent of the governed. I am a free citizen.

If the United Nations tried our current government officials according to our own laws, I am confident that a fair and honest trial in most cases would call for prison time. It is what I think is true of our current government. I don’t like it much, but I think it is true. But if the United Nations imposed such trials, and appointed fair and honest men to rule me in the place of those elected, I would resist, I would demonstrate, and I might well start or join a revolution, if necessary.

Why? Because I believe that freedom and democracy are more important than comfort, and peace. I am sworn to defend the Constitution, and I shall. I am not sworn to allegiance to George II, and I feel none. I have no respect at all for the men who have thrown my rights away and promised me safety. I am quite near to rebelling against the current government, but it is legitimate, by the Constitution, so my rebellion is limited to political speech, and votes.

Now, I don’t think I am a rabid American Fundamentalist Democrat. But I am not willing to see my country ruled by quisling regime. How can I expect some other country to accept the same?

But I see from the trend so far that some of my countrymen would find it untroubling to have their representative appointed by a foreign power, so long as their own plates remained full.

Tris

10

Tris…If you are speaking about me, I find it hard to believe you actually read what I wrote.

Did I state that I would be happy to betray my country, so long as I continued to experience material comfort? Exactly where did I state that, or what exactly did I say that led you to believe that I implied it?

I certainly would be against having my representatives “appointed” by a foreign power. But you explictly stated that was NOT your scenario…you imagined some people assisting the invaders in getting rid of the old regime, and then standing for election. If I felt those people had sold us out to the occupiers, I would vote against them. If I felt they had improved our lives and made us more free, I would consider voting for them, assuming I felt they were qualified.

What I would NOT do is reject them out of hand, on principle, because of their foreign connections. Why would connections to foreign powers automatically mean they were intolerable? They might very well be intolerable, they might very well be puppets of foreign tryanny. I would have to determine if they were in fact tyrants or puppets of tyrants. If not, then why would I object to them?

Tris, the obvious problem with your scenario is that all other things are NOT equal. For all our faults, America is a democratic country, where we are free to use the political process to change our government. That is why an invasion of the US would be imorral and should be resisted. But can you envision that there might come a time when that would not be the case?

Say Nixon refused to resign in 1974, somehow gets the backing of the military and a few key people. A coup, and the US is a military dictatorship. Yes there are massive protests at first, but those people are put in jail, the ringleaders are executed, and eventually the majority of people are more concerned with survival. Now it is 2003, and the senile Nixon is threatening Canada. The Canadians with the backing of the European Union invade. The sullen US conscript army is no match for the Canadians since our economy has collapsed due to wage and price controls. In fact, some units defect to the Canadian side, and several mayors, governors and business leaders hail the invaders. They seize Washington, arrest Nixon and his cronies, and proceed to dismantle the Nixon dictatorship. The Canadians and their American supporters re-establish republican government.

Are you saying that you would fight to restore the Nixon dictatorship…to restore Nixon to power? And you would attack Canadian troops, merely because they were foreigners? And you would regard the Americans who fought against the Nixon regime as traitors?

Back to reality. I happen to like the United States, for all our faults. But what I like isn’t the United States itself, it’s more that the United States is an instance of what I like. A free, democratic country, with the rule of law, civil rights, and a republican form of government. If the United States didn’t have those things I would fight to bring them about, and I wouldn’t think twice about accepting the help of Canadians, Germans, Russians, Chinese, Afghans, or Sudanese who shared my goals. But I would reject the help of foreigners who didn’t share my goals, who wanted to use me to dominate or enslave the country I happen to live in, no matter what material benefits I was promised by them.

Since the US currently is a pretty-much free country, any invasion of the US would almost by definition reduce or eliminate our freedoms. But what if we weren’t free? Don’t you see that under that circumstance an invasion of our country and the elimination of dictatorship by a foreign power might be welcome? Again, I’m not saying it would always be welcome…it is perfectly possible for a country suffering under tyranny to be invaded and conquered by another tyrannical country.

But it isn’t the foreign or domestic quality of the tyranny that makes it bad, it is the tyranny itself. Tryrannical fellow countrymen should be opposed, tyrannical foreign invaders should be opposed. Foreigners who invade a free country are by definition tyrannical, and should be opposed. But foreigners who invade a tyrannical country might or might not be tyrannical, I would have to decide on a case by case basis if they should be opposed or not.

11

Lemur,

If my country is invaded, and my government overthrown, I will not support the invaders, their quislings, or collaborators.

That doesn’t mean I am going to go looking for George II and try to get him put back in office. That doesn’t mean that I even likely to support anyone who held office before the invasion. I might think a clean sweep is a good idea. But willingness to serve a collaborationist government is enough to convince me I don’t want you in office.

If my country needs a revolution, I will participate in the revolution. By speech, by ballot, and if necessary by armed revolt. But I won’t let foreign governments have any say in the installation of a new government. I will let them provide help to the needy, and I will be very much inclined to favor such nations that do so in future political considerations. But I won’t support collaborationists. I don’t support the folks in my current government who think that trying to do that to another people is a good idea.

But good idea or not, it isn’t going to work. And the United States is going to make itself the sworn enemy of a generation of people, in Iraq, and many other nations because of it. And I understand exactly how they feel. Unfortunately, it’s already too late. And when the corruption behind the “reconstruction” of Iraq is revealed, and the true motives of the supporters of the Bush administration are revealed, it will be remembered with shame.

Tris

12

Well, that doesnt make sense to me, Triskadecamus

You would reject certain officials who would possibly have the best qualifications to help your people based on affiliation. You would dismiss their talents, their work, their intentions, their patrotism, their self sacrifice, their dedication for the good of the people all bsed on association with the enemy.

Guilt by association does not make sense.

I would undestand it more if you saw that these “collaborators” profited by their positions. If they followed the invader’s orders that hurt the people rather than help them then you would be correct.

What does it matter if a small group of rebels overthrew your govt, or a foreign nation or a bunch of exiles did it? What you should participate in is to help your country become strong and independent. Vote for people who can get the job done. Dont settle for second best just because they have no connections with the invader. Elect people who have the best qualifications for the job, who have the will and dedication to follow thru. Remember, Saddam came into power because he had no affiliations to any enemy whatsoever.

13

And do you think there are many Germans today who are upset that the Nazi regime was overthrown and freedom “imposed”? Come on, now.

I do not mean to equate Germany with Iraq, but the question was phrased very generally. And I offer up Nazi Germany as an example of a country that was occupied and treansformed into a Democracy (or returned to one, if you prefer). And, IIRC, quite a few Nazi officials, though mostly of low rank, were retained to keep order during the occupation.

14

Tris, obviously the occupation of Iraq could go sour. But I reject the notion that it MUST neccesarily go sour. As you have no doubt heard over and over again, reconstruction of Germany and Japan did not have the effects you describe.

Now, we can ask ourselves why those occupations had good results, and compare those situations to the situation in Iraq, and conclude that the conditions in Iraq do not and perhaps can not give us a successful outcome.

Countries have been occupied by foreign powers and the eventual result was friendship. And in other cases the result was hostility. Compare and contrast English occupation of Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. If collaborators are always criminals, then were the US founders traitors because they accepted assistance from France?

You say: “And when the corruption behind the “reconstruction” of Iraq is revealed, and the true motives of the supporters of the Bush administration are revealed, it will be remembered with shame.”

I have no quarrel with this statement, it may very well turn out to be true. If the occupation of Iraq turns it into an unfree colony, then those who helped to make it so are criminals. But we have not reached that state yet. But the crime wouldn’t be cooperating with the US, it would be cooperating with the US to loot and enslave Iraq. You and I might cooperate to do many things. Some things we might do would be crimes, others would not. The cooperation itself isn’t the problem, the problem is the crime.

I really can’t understand the division between domestic and foreign opposition you make so much of. Given what I know of you, I never pegged you for a nationalist.

15

A Constitutionist, actually.

I took an oath. It means a lot to me. I happen to think that this one thing, this frail scrap of paper, and the fundamental purposes it created is the thing that makes our nation any different than any other. Without it, I fear that we will soon fall into despotism, by whatever faction gains power.

And the Constitution vests the right to elect the government into the hands of the people, and nowhere else. If I serve a government empowered by any other means, I have betrayed the Constitution, and the people. My intentions and desires do not change that. Such a person has no place in a democratically elected government.

Now, it may be true that the Iraqi people have no similar thing to be loyal to. But it does not mean that their choices and their loyalties are unworthy of respect. As things stand now, we have done nothing to assure that the voice of the people of Iraq is the source of their government. If the Iraqi people despise the new government as an American quisling regime, I can certainly understand that. I have very strong doubts about the motives of my leaders in this entire matter, and I am an American. Were I an Iraqi, I find it likely that I would trust them even less.

And I think it inevitable that the first act of a truly free Iraqi electorate would be to choose a set of leaders fundamentally opposed to America in all things. I expect that exact thing to happen. I also expect a great deal of bloodshed to follow.

Tris

16

Can you explain why this extreme position would ensue? Do you think, for example, that the Kurds are rabidly anti-American?

I don’t think anyone would deny that this is a distinct possibility, but it does not depend on how pro- or anti-American the new gov’t turns out to be.

17

I know we sold the Kurds out three times in the last century. I have heard nothing to indicate that we have suddenly become willing to risk international status quo power in favor of gaining a representative apportionment of power in any of the nations where The Kurds live. If they aren’t anti American, they just aren’t paying attention. We can’t count on that to continue.

I happen to think the bloodshed will extend far beyond the borders of Iraq, and that we will have created yet another cradle to nurture anti Americanism for yet another generation. (Those who are counting on the Afghanis to be our pals should keep an eye out there, as well, this entire chain of logic applies equally in that nation.)

And I am still stunned by how many of my countrymen would support an appointed government, after an illegal occupation by foreign interests.

Tris

18

Tris: Correct me if I’m wrong, but you have just now introduced the fact that the occupation was “illegal”. Would you consider the occupation of Germany and Japan after WWII “illegal”?

19

We were in a far different position, during the Second World War, and the occupation was the result of a war that began with the Germans and Japanese invading other people. Loosing a war of imperial conquest is pretty much going to cause you to loose that government. However, if you consider the years of East Germany as an imposed dictatorship by an external military force, yeah, I think it was an illegitimate government.

I also think that the people of Japan lost their culture. They had a foreign culture imposed. The government that was imposed on them has grown into one of the most entrenched bureaucracies in the world, and a self serving power structure that engages in bribery, and corruption as a standard method of operation for its government.

Imposed democracies throughout Africa, both communist supported and those supported by the west, were almost uniformly corrupt, almost from the inception, and have resulted in genocide, and misery all over the continent. We installed the Shah, in Iran, and that didn’t work either. Governments foisted on the people of Cambodia by multiple players in the South East Asian War Games of the last half of the twentieth century squandered the wealth, and murdered the people of that nation. It is unlikely that they would have done so in the absence of foreign forces.

Israel is another foreign imposed political solution. Not doing all that well, there, and they are trying to impose a second generation foreign government on the people they conquered since they were created.

It is possible that it could work. It hasn’t worked any where nearly as often as it has been a disaster.

Tris

20

Tris: OK. Of course everyone was taking about West Germany, but now I’ve made it explicit. But I can see that you are completely conviced of your own ideas and no amount of info or debate will sway you one inch. You’ve offered no hard facts, only your own opinions on this thread. Enjoy your ideas debating with yourself.