How

In response to my rant about why we cannot fail to bring Democracy to Iraq, Constant Reader Dave Schuler writes:

I completely agree with every sentiment. But how?

You don't believe in warming up with an easy question, do you Dave? ; ) Well, if I'm gonna pontificate, It might become me to give this a stab anyway.

How do we ensure democracy is delivered to Iraq?

There are obviously many aspects to this, but two jump out at me, so I'll start this off with those. But, by way of introduction, let me note that I'm a strong believer in something Bill Cosby said about answering tough questions that children ask (you know, about sex or babies, etc). Mr. Cosby's philosophy was that "If they're old enough to ask the questions; they're old enough to hear the answers."

This leads me to two other beliefs: 1) When a people are ready to demand democracy, they are ready to have a democracy. This applies to who we should be choosing as the leaders in the transitional government, as well. By that I mean, in searching for who to put in power in Iraq, the choices should be from among those who have been working hardest toward that end all along. The choice of Hussain al-Shahristani as prime minister then, may not be the wisest (for other reasons too)*. He opposed Hussein, but not in order to demand democracy from what I can tell. Clearly there are strong pro-democracy voices in Iraq (I say that, not at all certain who they might be, but only to suggest the search begin among them, once they're identified).

An advocate who's a true believer, not just a humanitarian, would be the best choice for the transitional government. Someone who could rally the nation to believe democracy is worth fighting for and then put his/her money where their mouth is by stepping down after the first elections. Again, a True Believer.

2) If a nation is ready to fight to bring democracy to another nation, they are ready to sacrifice for that action.

I'm completely in agreement with John McCain about this, and have been since 9/12/2001. If we're at war, it does not do our national soul any good to limit the sacrifices we're asked to make to "more shopping" or volunteering up our civil liberties for an indefinite period of time. If we're at war, we should behave as a nation at war. Conservation should be a moral obligation. Tax Cuts should be weighed against the needs of the military. Stories like this nearly give me an aneurism. I really want to strangle the politicians who insist we can afford the tax cuts and this war at the same time. Clearly, if our soldiers' parents are having to raise funds to send them bullet proof vests, WE CAN'T! Maybe there are reasons beyond available funds that lead this to absurdity, but I can't help but wonder how many bullet proof vests the combined money spent on campaign advertisements this year would buy.

OK, climbing down off my soap box now (gotta get some lunch), but these two approaches strike me as a good start to how we ensure democracy in Iraq.

*This sounds too familiar:

Before the war, al-Shahristani was among the Iraqi exiles who insisted that Saddam maintained weapons of mass destruction. In February 2003, he told CBS' ``60 Minutes'' that such weapons may have been hidden in tunnels for a Baghdad subway that never opened.

Comments

[JimPortlandOR]

aah hemmn...

"When a people are ready to demand democracy, they are ready to have a democracy."

Would you add: Democracy doesn't arrive at the point of a gun, or in the midst of civil chaos?

And how about: Democracy (like sovereignty) can't be promised to be delivered 'in full' and then 'limited' when delivered.

Putting aside any cleverness (which isn't native to me), I really don't see "How do we ensure" democracy. We can help with structural conditions, the security, the advice, but the US can't deliver democracy like a sack of wheat. I'm sure you know that, but to some that isn't obvious.

In a multi-cultural society with sharp religious and ethnic (and soon to be political) divisions,
I don't see how outsiders (especially occupiers) make much progress by writing transitional laws, etc. without the deep and continued involvement of the people involved. It has to be their government, whatever they end up wanting. We are not acting on this truth.

Have there been any attempts to get all of the interests and groups together for extended discussions of their future? Not to my knowledge.

That is the starting place. It takes much, much more to up the odds of a good outcome.

On the composition of the interim government (until Jan 05), even with this being presented as a UN endeavor, it looks to much like something being imposed.

I'm not as convinced as you that the Pres., VPs, and Prime Minister need be committed advocates of democracy (since the CPA has decreed that they can't make laws, or control the military, serve after Jan 05, etc.

I agree that al-Shahristani isn't the vocal democracy advocate, but whoever gets to be PM will be, in fact, only a caretaker administrator, by design.

BTW, al-Shahristani, rumored to be the PM designate yesterday, was today disavowed by the CPA. It seems US State and Defense are having a little disagreement, and the UN seems smart enough to remain silent.

On the question of sacrifice in the US: I wholeheartedly agree that George II is serving guns and butter to the American people.

Instead of 'pay any price, bear any burden', we have 'pay with your children's money', and burden only the military families involved.

Truly, this war effort can't be allowed to damage the re-election effort, can it?

Sorry for any cynicism detected in my comments. My anger is BushCo directed, but it is hard to contain unidirectionally with the amplitude of anger I feel. [offering noise protectors to all]

jim

[Sam]

Here's a depressing thought. Sociologist (or should I say historical-sociologist) Barrington Moore argued long ago (1966), in a big, fat book (The Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy) that democracy is always and everywhere (or something to that effect) ushered in by large-scale violence. Think of the English Civil War; the French Revolution; the American Civil War; etc. Although his class analysis may not fit today's Iraq all that well, it would not be too much of an analytic stretch to say that democracy will come to Iraq only after the impending, and likely bloody, three-way civil war has been settled. This is especially apposite, it seems to me, when we add a little Max Weber (everyone's favorite German sociologist) into the mix: without a monopoly of the legitimate means of coercion (as was almost pointed out on the front page of the NYT yesterday - they forgot the "legitimate"), no central Iraqi government stands much of a chance imposing its rule over the territorty it claims. And the still-standing militias (will Sadr be able to have his stand down now, ready to fight another day?), certainly negate that monopoly for the soon-to-be-kinda-sovereign Iraqi state. No, it does not look good. Iraqi democracy will probably be a long, bloody time in coming.

[Moe Lane]

"Here's a depressing thought."

Ease thy brow: this argument of Moore's isn't taking into account the German reunification, Poland, the Czech Republic, the Baltic states, (fingers crossed) Georgia... all nation states where the transition to a democratic form of government was notably absent of large-scale violence.

Which does not necessarily mean that Iraq's future will be rosy, of course. But things are never hopeless.

[Anarch]

Edward: If we're at war, it does not do our national soul any good to limit the sacrifices we're asked to make to "more shopping" or volunteering up our civil liberties for an indefinite period of time.

Trying to redeem myself a tad, see here for my attempt to further explore this issue.

[Moe Lane]

I'm sorry, Anarch: did you do something that you're feeling guilty about? - because as far as I can tell I at least am not POed with you at all.

[engineer_charley]

I haven't worked this out very far yet, and maybe the point has already been made to a degree, but I'm reminded of a tenet from the quality/process realm: you can't export quality. The right environment has to exist at the target for the seed to take root. In quality's case, it's a top-down process (management has to want it). In democracy's case, I think history has shown it's a bottom-up process. I am sure the U.S. cannot cram democracy down the throats of any populace that doesn't already want and understand it. Which makes me wonder if the Iraqi people are ready, willing, and thus able to implement democracy. We like our system because we grew it our way. I think they're going to have to do the same thing, and that it's arrogant to assume we have the ability to make it happen any other way. We may have slammed open the door, but they have to walk through it. I think we should help as best we can, but I'm pessimistic about our ability to refrain from tinkering too much.

[Edward]

I really don't see "How do we ensure" democracy. We can help with structural conditions, the security, the advice, but the US can't deliver democracy like a sack of wheat. I'm sure you know that, but to some that isn't obvious.

Jim, not only do I know that, I have a bet on it. But I'm convinced we're not doing all we can do to set the conditions for democracy to emerge in Iraq...choosing prime ministers whose biggest appeal is that they stood up to Saddam Hussein, being a good indication that we're not at all serious about Iraqi democracy, as much as we are simply about getting the hell out of there and letting the country take whatever hellish path may await it.

A transitional leader dedicated to democracy, of course, may fail horribly in inspiring his/her people to demand a democratic future, but at least it's a safe bet he/she would try. Expecting anyone else to get the Iraqis there strikes me as hopelessly naive...they'd likely spend the first 6 months simply laying the foundation for their eventual dicatatorship. A true believer as transitional prime minister, an Iraqi George Washington, is the best gift we can give Iraq, IMHO.

Here's a depressing thought. Sociologist (or should I say historical-sociologist) Barrington Moore argued long ago (1966), in a big, fat book (The Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy)

Toss that book away Sam, the bloodless revolutions in Portugal and Spain alone (which happened after 1966) disproved that theory. Then of course, you have the later examples Moe cites.

[Gromit]

Edward: Toss that book away Sam, the bloodless revolutions in Portugal and Spain alone (which happened after 1966) disproved that theory. Then of course, you have the later examples Moe cites.

Did any of those instances involve such a heavily divided and well-armed populace as does Iraq?