# The US doesn't want Democracy in Iraq **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 12, 2003, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-doesnt-want-democracy-in-iraq/174663 "2003-05-12T11:24:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2003, 10:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-doesnt-want-democracy-in-iraq/174663/21 "2003-06-08T10:55:32Z")
First, I’d like to tell the board I have some obs to share as soon as I get the time. I spent the weekend meeting with Provisional Authority people and have some interesting observatinos. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by adaher \* > \*\*Examples, please? I know of no examples of democracy leading to something like IRan, the Taliban, or the Saudi Wahabbists. \*\* Now we’re moving the goal posts. Primo, there is no small space btw secular regimes and Saudi Arabia or the Taleban. Secundo: Pakistan, with its volatile mix, has never in its most democratic moments produced secularism per se. Example off the top of my head. Egypt, were it to hold free non-controlled elections would clearly produce an Islamist government. Algeria, in its 1990-1991 electoral season produced Islamist majorities. Outside the Islamic world, Indian democracy has been on an almost decade long march towards Hinduism and away from Ghandi’s secular principals. The BJP is a religious party that has slowly but surely pushed religion into Indian law. If not aborted, and given that Congress has begun to adopt Hinduist themes this seems unlikely, Indian democracy will continue to slide towards religious particularism quite off the track of secularism. That should do for now. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2003, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-doesnt-want-democracy-in-iraq/174663/22 "2003-06-08T17:25:47Z")
I would also add that Sharia can function in the same way as common law does in the West. This is true for Pakistan and for India (in India, Muslims are allowed to use Sharia for civil matters relating to certain domestic issues such as inheritance, property rights, marriage/divorce, etc.). > [@](#): > > \*Collounsbury:\*Outside the Islamic world, Indian democracy has been on an almost decade long march towards Hinduism and away from Ghandi’s secular principals. The BJP is a religious party that has slowly but surely pushed religion into Indian law. If not aborted, and given that Congress has begun to adopt Hinduist themes this seems unlikely, Indian democracy will continue to slide towards religious particularism quite off the track of secularism. I think the reality is a little more complex in that the rise in Hinduist nationalism was fed in large part by the perception of the Congress party as corrupt and toadying to the Muslim population, as well as the ongoing dispute in Kashmir. I don’t view this necessarily as being an ongoing trend, though, given that the BJP was forced to tone down its harshest rhetoric after the Mosque debacle and was summarily booted from office in 3 states. Also, since there are several smaller parties (communist, DMK) which have a decidedly non-Hinduist bent to them, I don’t think Indian secularism is in any real danger of collapsing. Indian secularism has always been somewhat weird from a Western perspective, in that accomodations are made in the law for a specific religion’s set of practices, rather than having one uniform set of laws that apply to everyone. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2003, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-doesnt-want-democracy-in-iraq/174663/23 "2003-06-08T17:33:53Z")
I also wanted to add that Pakistan was orginally conceived as a secular country with a Muslim majority (understandable, given then East Pakistan’s notable Hindu minority combined with its legacy of British law) and that Jinnah (it’s founder) was at least somewhat of a secularist, but that the government has evolved into something which, while not a theocracy, definitely has an Islamic tone to it. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Calculus\_of\_Logic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/aeb1de/32.png) [@The\_Calculus\_of\_Logic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Calculus_of_Logic)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-doesnt-want-democracy-in-iraq/174663/24 "2003-06-09T05:42:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* > \*\* > How many times have oil market mechanics been covered here? And yet we get the same silly ignorance again and again. \*\* I try not to talk to you because you are a pompous asshole who acts like a 4 year old girl but i will bite this time. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* > \*\* > Yes indeed, but the price of oil is determined by global demand and production my dear fellow, **global demand and global supply**. It’s a highly liquid market, meaning that there are few barriers to production being sent to region X versus Y, such that global aggregate demand versus supply sets a world price with relatively minor regional variations due to minor barriers – largely issues re converting refineries optimized to refine one grade to another. > > Well, my dear fellow, should you trouble yourself to come to some faint acquaintance with oil market dynamics, and I may add a general conception of basic economics and supply and demand in an efficient market, you would realize that the sudden removal of a significant amount of supply given a level of demand is going to have real price effects. > > Now you did note, perhaps correctly that given a Iraqi embargo somewhere down the line by an “Islamist” regime that Saudi production could make up for the differnce. They are the single most important swing producer and indeed do play an outsized role in managing oil prices. If we presume Saudi benevolence on this issue – which at this moment is a good assumption, but perhaps not such a good assumption in 10 years – then you are right. > > \*\* I admit you’re right, a large scale cutback by the iraqi gov would hurt the world’s oil market but that would be economic suicide for the Iraqi government. it would be cutting off the nose to spite the face. i don’t see it happening. the Iraqi government, which is trying to rebuild itself from 2 decades of sanctions & war, is not going to remove $85 million a day in oil revenue (assuming they cut back from 4 million to 1 million barrels a day). which was my point. It would be economic suicide for not only the Iraqi government, but it would harm the oil dependent world as well as the US. A bad idea when the international community will probably be involved in rebuilding iraq for several years. I don’t know if any new Iraqi regime would do such a thing. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-doesnt-want-democracy-in-iraq/174663/25 "2003-06-09T06:46:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Calculus of Logic \* > I try not to talk to you because you are a pompous asshole who acts like a 4 year old girl but i will bite this time. Now, now, direct insults are for the pit my dear youngster, the pit. I do appreciate the 4 year old girl part though, it is new. > [@](#): > > I admit you’re right, Good, you should do so more often, it would build character. > [@](#): > > a large scale cutback by the iraqi gov would hurt the world’s oil market but that would be economic suicide for the Iraqi government. it would be cutting off the nose to spite the face. REally, in the Middle East cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face is a high art form. The Palestinians have in particular perfected such politics, but Iraq’s for. policy for the past decade comes close. Sorry, while I myself consider it a low prob. it is not something that can be excluded as a risk. > [@](#): > > i don’t see it happening. the Iraqi government, which is trying to rebuild itself from 2 decades of sanctions & war, is not going to remove $85 million a day in oil revenue (assuming they cut back from 4 million to 1 million barrels a day). which was my point. Depends, if an extremist government came to power, although it is a fairly low liklihood. Regardless, rebuilding Iraq is not going to be with the petrol dollars – I just got a set of best estimates from the provisional authority (CPA-Iraq) indicating oil revenues may just barely cover for the next five years reconstructing that sector alone. No, private money and USG transfers are going to have to shoulder the burden. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-doesnt-want-democracy-in-iraq/174663/26 "2003-06-09T06:51:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BrightNShiny \* > I think the reality is a little more complex in that the rise in Hinduist nationalism was fed in large part by the perception of the Congress party as corrupt and toadying to the Muslim population, as well as the ongoing dispute in Kashmir. I don’t view this necessarily as being an ongoing trend, though, given that the BJP was forced to tone down its harshest rhetoric after the Mosque debacle and was summarily booted from office in 3 states. Yes, there was backtracking, however the rebound since the events in Gujarat in the past two years, pogroms and the like, have not been encouraging. I am not a specialist in these affaires, but the Economist recently featured some moderately pessimistic analysis of the state of Indian secularism. I should hardly be, on that basis, sanguine, although neither does that mean BJP will march on and on. ---
**Author:** ![Bibliovore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Bibliovore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bibliovore)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-doesnt-want-democracy-in-iraq/174663/27 "2003-06-09T16:26:52Z")
I think I should clarify a point that I made in the OP. When I said: “Needless to say, neither the US or the UK want a new oil-rich Islamic State within such a strategic area, let alone one that would likely forge strong ties to Iran.” I did not mean that this new Shiite-lead Iraq would necessarily cut off oil supplies to the US, or even decrease production. To be honest, the thoght hadn’t even crossed my mind. What I _did_ mean was that this new state would have plenty of money and natural resources (hence buying power), and would probably be on friendly terms with Iran. Considering that Iran now has a n active nuclar-weapons programme, this is obviously something that the US want to avoid at all costs. Hence my assertion that the US will maintain a choke-hold on the development of the new Iraqi government, and would likely bar the election of any candidate who wasn’t a total puppet. No matter how much the Iraqis would like to choose their opwn leader at this point, the US will only let them have one that comes with their stamp of approval… ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-doesnt-want-democracy-in-iraq/174663/28 "2003-06-09T20:10:20Z")
Look, there is a difference between holding an election for the next dictatorship and democracy. Why go to the trouble of killing Saddam if we stand by and allow them to elect Saddam’s spiritual brother as dictator? Holding an election for president and then leaving would be the absolute worst thing we could do. Even if somehow a moderate were elected, they would be forced to assume dictatorial powers to prevent themselves from being overthrown. The party that wins power in the first election becomes the permanent ruling class. This is what happened in almost every decolonized country in the last century. An election is held, a new President for life is chosen, until the next civil war or coup. I can’t understand exactly what the OP is upset about. Do you WANT an illiberal regime installed? I understand that if an election were held today the Iraqis would very likely chose an illiberal regime. That doesn’t mean that we are obliged to stand aside while they saddle themselves with one. Imagine the Iraqi people tomorrow freely installing an odious dictatorship. Now imagine the US getting fed up with the misbehavior of that odious dictatorship, so much so that they invade Iraq to depose the dictator. Now imagine us skipping that step and simply preventing the odious dictator from assuming power in the first place. Which scenario has your vote? Elections != Democracy. Giving the Iraqis one without the other would be a betrayal. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-doesnt-want-democracy-in-iraq/174663/29 "2003-06-09T23:15:46Z")
So, “you can have an elected government, but only one that _we_ approve of” is an acceptable form of “democracy” for you? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-doesnt-want-democracy-in-iraq/174663.md?page=1)