http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3BB6FF05-109D-4A43-81AE-D49EB03F851C.htm
First, let me just note that this is likely the last thread I'm going to be posting for a while. I'm afraid I'll be away for most of the summer, except for short intervals. My access to the Intarweb will be limited, and what access I'll have - well, let's just saying I'm leary of getting TERB's cookies any place they might be discovered by...certain parties I would rather not have discovering them.
Ahem.
Now, to the subject at hand. Iraq's National Assembly finally has a speaker. While this development, coming just about two months after the elections, will no doubt be touted as yet another step in the unstoppable march of freedom, those of us canny enough might take a moment to reflect.
Political and ethnic divisions are alive and well in Iraq - of course, they are alive and well everywhere, but rarely do they direct politics to the level they are in this "emerging democracy". Iraq's hastily concocted electoral system did several things - it virtually ensured that ethnic divisions within the country would become reified within the political system, and secondly they also virtually ensured that parties lukewarm to America - and democracy - would come into power. American influence has succeeded only in giving Kurds an ever so slight upper hand within the new regiem - as Kurds are most likely to tow any American line. Because, no doubt, of the vicissitudes of the occupation, some unavoidable, some unquestionably not, the Shites rejected Allawi, who though distinctly autocratic in personality was at least likely to do what America wanted - and America does not want, make no mistake, a theocracy. But the semi-theocratic Shite parties which hold the greatest leaverage now - they would have had more leverage had there not been some passing attempt at resticting their power through "federalism" (how do you have federalism without a federation?) have made no commitment to democractic principals. They have only "committed" to being less a theocracy than Iran - oh, joy. Mission Accomplished.
There are two inter-related problems here. The first is Iraq's need for self-determination, and the second is the need for democracy. The one, we know, does not lead to the other - Iraqis may whole-heartedly vote away their democratic rights. There are parties all over the Middle East wanting to replace autocratic with theocratic regiems - and they must undoubtedly look at Iraq and salivate.
The second problem is Iraq's future as a client state, which it will undoubtedly be, even long after the troops leave. The future of American credibility rests now within Iraqi hands - and this is a dangerous position for any power to be in. Castro nearly drove the Soviets to war with the States. What concesions with the States make to the new power in Bhagdad to save face?
The same infantile logic that declared "Sadaam is gone, therefore life has improved for the ordinary citizen in Iraq and the world is safer" is now loudly declaring "There have been elections in Iraq, therefore Iraq is a democracy". This logic is being treated with a level of credulity never before accorded to the Bush administration. I wonder sometimes when Rummy or one of his cohorts declare that democracy takes time if they are really listening to what they are saying. Yes, democracy took decades to take root in America. And it wasn't always a sure thing - if it hadn't been for men of deep, deep committment to democracy like George Washington, who refused to become King of America - the American revoltion might have gone the way of the French Revolution. So why is two years long enough to establish democracy in Iraq - no, the better question is, in the absence of any Washingtons, and plenty of would-be Robbespierres and Napoleons (and Khomenis), why is it a sure thing at all?
First, let me just note that this is likely the last thread I'm going to be posting for a while. I'm afraid I'll be away for most of the summer, except for short intervals. My access to the Intarweb will be limited, and what access I'll have - well, let's just saying I'm leary of getting TERB's cookies any place they might be discovered by...certain parties I would rather not have discovering them.
Ahem.
Now, to the subject at hand. Iraq's National Assembly finally has a speaker. While this development, coming just about two months after the elections, will no doubt be touted as yet another step in the unstoppable march of freedom, those of us canny enough might take a moment to reflect.
Political and ethnic divisions are alive and well in Iraq - of course, they are alive and well everywhere, but rarely do they direct politics to the level they are in this "emerging democracy". Iraq's hastily concocted electoral system did several things - it virtually ensured that ethnic divisions within the country would become reified within the political system, and secondly they also virtually ensured that parties lukewarm to America - and democracy - would come into power. American influence has succeeded only in giving Kurds an ever so slight upper hand within the new regiem - as Kurds are most likely to tow any American line. Because, no doubt, of the vicissitudes of the occupation, some unavoidable, some unquestionably not, the Shites rejected Allawi, who though distinctly autocratic in personality was at least likely to do what America wanted - and America does not want, make no mistake, a theocracy. But the semi-theocratic Shite parties which hold the greatest leaverage now - they would have had more leverage had there not been some passing attempt at resticting their power through "federalism" (how do you have federalism without a federation?) have made no commitment to democractic principals. They have only "committed" to being less a theocracy than Iran - oh, joy. Mission Accomplished.
There are two inter-related problems here. The first is Iraq's need for self-determination, and the second is the need for democracy. The one, we know, does not lead to the other - Iraqis may whole-heartedly vote away their democratic rights. There are parties all over the Middle East wanting to replace autocratic with theocratic regiems - and they must undoubtedly look at Iraq and salivate.
The second problem is Iraq's future as a client state, which it will undoubtedly be, even long after the troops leave. The future of American credibility rests now within Iraqi hands - and this is a dangerous position for any power to be in. Castro nearly drove the Soviets to war with the States. What concesions with the States make to the new power in Bhagdad to save face?
The same infantile logic that declared "Sadaam is gone, therefore life has improved for the ordinary citizen in Iraq and the world is safer" is now loudly declaring "There have been elections in Iraq, therefore Iraq is a democracy". This logic is being treated with a level of credulity never before accorded to the Bush administration. I wonder sometimes when Rummy or one of his cohorts declare that democracy takes time if they are really listening to what they are saying. Yes, democracy took decades to take root in America. And it wasn't always a sure thing - if it hadn't been for men of deep, deep committment to democracy like George Washington, who refused to become King of America - the American revoltion might have gone the way of the French Revolution. So why is two years long enough to establish democracy in Iraq - no, the better question is, in the absence of any Washingtons, and plenty of would-be Robbespierres and Napoleons (and Khomenis), why is it a sure thing at all?
