Someone just needs to go slap the asshole editor at the New York Times who wrote this headline:
Iraq’s Shiites Insist on Democracy. Washington Cringes
Because it is really that simple, you see. Even a theocratic Shiite cleric wants democracy more than this administration. I can’t write anything else because I will use too many four letter words.
Split Lip
“democracy” is not simply an election. to me “democracy” is a title earned by the accumulation of several of the following bits, the more bits there are the more democratic a country is:
*universal suffrage
*fair elections
*a peaceful change of power after an election
*free speech
*freedom to practice any religion
* majority rule but protections for minorities against tyranny of the majority
*legislative body comprised of elected members
*state does not own most of the productive sectors of the economy
*fair trials for criminal defendants
*courts neutral and fair, judgments respected by even government
*right to own property
*right not to have your property taken by gov’t w/o them paying you for it
There are probably other “fragments of democracy” to list, but those are the big ones.
gg
here’s my new nickname for sneaky Dean: “Howard the Duck.”
JC
John, so how else do you explain the contention over:
“No one has the right to appoint the members of the constitutional assembly,” he said several weeks ago, in a statement in response to written questions. “We see no alternative but to go back to the people for choosing their representatives.”
I mean, the title of the article pretty much fits what the actual bone of contention is: Democratic election of the representatives or appointment of the representatives by the CPA.
Seems pretty darn cut n’ dried to me.
Harry
Yep JC and with that kind of democracy the majority Shiites run the show and the country. After that happens let’s see how keen the Shiites (and their clerics) are on democracy for everyone, shall we, hmmmm?
Andrew Lazarus
If the delay is to make sure that the new government is organized around the rule of law, and with protection for minorities, I can see a reason for it. On the other hand, if (and I think it’s possible) the current IGC is just trying to see how to maximize its own importance, that’s a problem.
The Shiites are ALWAYS going to be the majority group in Iraq. Does that mean they never get to hold regular elections?
Russ
I recently heard a more basic, mechanistic reason for a delay in elections in Iraq: you have to have a census first.
[Is there any reasonable hope of completing an accurate national census before, say, next June? I think not – not when census workers stand a chance of being murdered by unrepentant Ba’athists.]
After a census, you have to have apportionment. THEN you can have national elections.
But really, I think the mistake is in trying to do democracy in Iraq in what might be described as a “top-down” manner. Far better, I think, to begin at the local level with town council elections, etc., working the Iraqis’ way upwards toward a nation-wide democracy.
Just my $0.02….
Dana
The more I hear from the NYT, the less respect I have for it as a credible news source. They’ve gone from wearing their bias on their sleeve to slapping it right on their foreheads.
Grego
Usually I don’t have a clue on what should be done on iraq, here are some ideas though.
Divide the country into 3 separate ethic areas, like states in a federation as close as possible according to ethnic lines.
Have local elections for each town and 3 congressional bodies with either a president or leader of each part like a Prime Minister. Each town elects someone to the state parliament. Have a constitution that applies to all 3 states.
In any decision that affects all 3 states it must be decided unanimously. For example with 3 presidents all 3 have to agree to stop 2 states ganging up on the other. This works in the European Union where in many issues all states have to agree.
The solves the problem of three different people in one country, which was created by Britain when they drew the borders of Iraq. Technically creating these states violates the Geneva Convention but they could be ratified by elections or a referendum. When each group saw the benefits of self rule as opposed to rule by others then they would likely ratify it.
There would be a common army directed only be a unanimous vote of all 3. Police would be a separate state matter. The federation would handle monetary policy with a single currency with all 3 states sitting on the reserve board and again needing a unanimous vote. Oil would be a national resource and proceeds divided equally according to the population from each state. All oil policy must be unanimous for all three states. All would have a right of passage and to settle in another state if they desire.
There are plenty of exampes on how this has worked well in the past. Yugoslavia was stable for a long time as was Czechoslovakia. What will probably happen is one or more states will eventually become taken over by a religious party or secular Baathists but the need for unanimous voting will prevent the whole country going this way.
The US can court relations with individual states playing them off against each other in offering aid. The other states as they miss out will tend to moderate.
Siniac
Split lip,
Good list but you left out one of the top 2 or 3 most important things in a real democracry.
Rule of Law, ie. real independant courts and non corrupt police.
Siniac
Siniac
ooops, sorry about the dislexia.
“*fair trials for criminal defendants
*courts neutral and fair, judgments respected by even governmen”
CadillaqJaq
NYT?
I’m seeking backing to produce a gray colored toilet tissue that could be marketed as “Recycled NYT Tissue: wipes only the butts fit to wipe.”
Other than throwing it on the floor of Porta-Jons or bird cages, it’s worthless and a waste of newsprint stock.
JC
Wow. I understand the difference between a republic and raw democracy. But my point is, the title is apt.
We should be shuddering.
Harry
All I’m saying Laz is that the Shiites want this vote now in order to direct the more permanent outcome later. In other words they want to game the election system.
Dave
Wow, they picked up on modern politics fast, huh Harry? :P
Kimmitt
Since this Administration is not particularly interested in sustaining the Rule of Law or democratic values here in the US, it’s not precisely surprising that they’re having some difficulty bringing themselves to attempt to inculcate them in the Iraqi people.
Harry
It ain’t easy being green, is it Kimmit?
Harry
Actually Dave I’ll bet the real pushing behind this is coming out of Iran into the Shia’ community.
Andrew Lazarus
I don’t think so. The Shi`a will NEVER have to game the election system just to win seats, as a fair one will already give them a preponderance of the power. I suppose they could try to rig it to diminish the role of the Sunni Arabs and the Kurds even further, but I don’t think that’s necessary. I think we are truly worrying that even a FAIR election will result in a Shi`a government that THEN disregards the rule of law and institutes a tyranny of the majority. For instance, they could try redistricting the Sunni and Kurds out of their Parliament seats. (Ooops, although seriously the leading American expert on political and election structures to safeguard minority views is Lani Guinier, and you remember how dismissive the Republicans were of her ideas as applied to AMERICA.)
Meanwhile, I think there’s also an attempt of the Governing Council to keep as much for themselves as long as they can. Ahmed Charlatan Chalabi—doubtless relishing his turn as Finance Minister—probably still has more votes at AEI than in all of Iraq.
Slartibartfast
Since {absurd premise}, {irrelevant conclusion}.
Thought I’d shorten that up a bit for you, Kimmitt. Plus, I just gave you a nifty template for further comments. No need to thank me.
Kimmitt
Sorry, thought I was at a blog where the owner and his readers gave a rat’s ass about voting machines and abuses of the Patriot Act.
John Cole
What did I miss here?
Slartibartfast
I’m not sure. I was just helping Kimmitt be more concise, and he pulled out another of those absurd premise thingies.
To be clear, the idea that some imperfection implies a total disinterest in right action is close to lacking any moral or logical merit whatever. I therefore conclude that Kimmitt has zero interest in participating in logical discussion.
Hoo boy. Now he’s got me doing it.
Slartibartfast
Ok, that was probably a little too much snark. Well, I’m annoyed today, and unusually snark-prone.
Kimmitt
I have a hard time describing “holding American citizens without counsel or charges” and/or “blocking legislation which would make elections harder for a precocious eight-year-old to steal” as “imperfections.”
Slartibartfast
Perhaps, Kimmitt. But you could at least make a token effort to actually make your point, rather than flinging the random turd. At least then we’d have the slightest notion of what you’re talking about.
Thus, snark begets snark.
Kimmitt
Again with the comment regarding context.
Slartibartfast
Lacking context, that means nothing to me. I know you can do it, Kimmitt. I’ve seen you use complete sentences, and I’ve seen you discuss points rather intelligently.
Kimmitt
Right.
I had meant the statement to stand in the context of this blog, which has excoriated failures of this Administration to provide due process and which had correctly fretted regarding the vote-tampering capacities of Diebold machines.
Obviously, what I attempted to gain in brevity I lost in clarity.