[Lezmaka]

I just had a thought.

Is the US going to try and make (as in force) any new government in Iraq to be a democracy? What if, for some reason, the Iraqi's don't want a democracy?

[K.I.L.E.R]

Originally Posted by Lezmaka

I just had a thought.

Is the US going to try and make (as in force) any new government in Iraq to be a democracy? What if, for some reason, the Iraqi's don't want a democracy?

Then who do they want?
Communism with Suddam Hussein in power?

j/k


PS: THIS IS A JOKE, JOKES MAKE PEOPLE LAUGH!

[nutball]

They had democracy before the invasion. Granted it was a one-party state-style democracy, but Saddam did win 99.x% of the votes in an election a few months ago.

Anyway, more seriously, I can't see the fuses coping with that little overload. Every man, woman and child on the planet has the right by birth to choose between Pepsi and Coke.

[Pete]

Deomcracy? I think they'd be satisfied with just the whiskey and the sexy.

[Snyder]

Originally Posted by Lezmaka

I just had a thought.

Is the US going to try and make (as in force) any new government in Iraq to be a democracy? What if, for some reason, the Iraqi's don't want a democracy?

That's in fact a very valid question.
Outside the big cities of Iraq the areas are dominated by a strong tribal system lead absolutistically (sp?) by sheiks who usually have quite a large (although lightly armed) "private army" and who have an autonomy of quite a scale (e.g. juridistiction and others). They weren't exactly good friends of Saddam, but as his power was waning, he was supporting them (even letting himself being announced "Sheik of Sheiks" by the other sheiks in a TV ceremony earlier this year), or at least pretending to.

This tribal system has a long tradition and usually sought to hold on to as much power as was possible with regard to the current political leader in the country. With a currently prevalent vacuum of power (especially in the rural regions), the sheiks have gained much authority in their respective clan. And I don't think they will give this up easily, regardless of the kind of government that is appointed in Baghdad.

Oh, and I read about this in several articles of US journalists and political scientists, but I can't find the links at the moment because Internet connection is veeeery unstable here in my company at the moment. (B3D is one of the few sites that I can reach.)
So please nobody start any of these damn senseless and useless US-Europe pissing matches...(and I'm addressing _both_ sides!)

[Sabastian]

Shea clerics are looking for a fundamentalist state, just like the Shea next door in Iran. It will be difficult to quell that notion. There won't be one though and that is a good thing.

Iran is run by hard line clerics the last thing the west wants to see is another fundamentalist state there. I was kind of shocked by the idea that the US was looking for the Shea to help them get rid of Saddam's regime at first they really don't like western values.. that includes democracy, but it isn't based on any sort of rational thinking its based out of Islamic fanaticism.

[Nagorak]

Government type is just a technicality, the wealth elite maintain their power regardless. A Rockefeller still is a Rockefeller whether he's a king or just a rich tycoon. The Warlords in Afghanistan still hold their power now that the Taliban is gone and its supposedly a "democracy". The Shieks held power when Saddam was in charge, and they still have power now, and will continue to hold power regardless of what sort of government emerges (in fact they'll probably be instrumental in deciding what type the country gets). In many ways a democracy is just a farce, which is why many people in the US don't even bother voting.

Anyway, I'm interested in seeing what happens, since the whole point of the US strategy of supporting the rotten dictators in the Middle East has been so Fundamentalist governments don't arise. Now George W. in a fit of genius has thrown the tactic we've employed for the past 20 years out the window. He thinks he knows what he's doing by going against Reagan, Clinton, and the first Bush. I'm not sure any of that trio were geniuses either, but so far the "new deal" isn't not looking so good: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ims/index.html

By the way, where are the WMDs? I'm still waiting, and I don't think the cheesy Iraqi propaganda songs count. Pretty funny, how there's been no mention of this in the media.. hmmmm...............

[Silent_One]

Nagorak wrote:

The Shieks held power when Saddam was in charge, and they still have power now, and will continue to hold power regardless of what sort of government emerges (in fact they'll probably be instrumental in deciding what type the country gets).

Actually, the Shieks did not have as much power under Saddam as you indicate. Even the article you linked indicates their influence was curtailed:

A flood of exuberant Shiite Muslim pilgrims surged into the central Iraqi city of Karbala, reviving a religious tradition that was not allowed under Saddam Hussein's rule.........<snip>.......Saddam favored Sunni Muslims and used his largely secular rule to try to limit the influence of all religious clerics.........

Since the 1930's the procession to Karbala has been periodically banned by successive goverments because of the potential of the meeting becoming a political rally. Durning Saddam's rule pilgrims were gunned down on the road to Karbala. During the rebellion after the Gulf War of 1991 scores of Shiite leaders were imprisoned or killed. In 1998 after another uprising the Shiite cleric ayatollah Muhammad al-Sadr was assassinated.

Nagorak wrote:

In many ways a democracy is just a farce, which is why many people in the US don't even bother voting.

Democracy a farce? You don't get it do you? Heres an article you should read. Maybe you'll understand better the reasons behind wanting a Democracy for Iraq.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanista...604310,00.html
Solution lies in democracy, stupid!
Thomas L Friedman in New Delhi
Friday November 23, 2001

If you were asked to name the second-largest Muslim community in the world you'd probably think of Iran, Pakistan or maybe Saudi Arabia. But you'd be wrong. With nearly 150m Muslims, India is believed to have more Muslim citizens than Pakistan or Bangladesh, and is second only to Indonesia.
Which brings up another question that I've been asking here in New Delhi: why is it you don't hear about Indian Muslims - who are a minority in this vast Hindu-dominated land - blaming America for all their problems or wanting to fly suicide planes into the Indian parliament? Answer: it has a multi-ethnic, pluralistic, free-market democracy.
Of course, Indian Muslims have their frustrations, and have squared off over the years in violent clashes with Hindus, as has every other minority in India. But they live in a noisy, messy democracy, where opportunities and a political voice are open to them, and that makes a huge difference.

"I'll give you a quiz question: which is the only large Muslim community to enjoy sustained democracy for the last 50 years? The Muslims of India," remarked M J Akbar, the Muslim editor of Asian Age, a national English-language daily in India funded by non-Muslim Indians.

"I am not going to exaggerate Muslim good fortune in India," he added. "There are tensions, economic discrimination and provocations, like the destruction of the mosque at Ayodhya. But the fact is, the Indian constitution is secular and provides a real opportunity for the economic advancement of any community that can offer talent. That's why a growing Muslim middle class here is moving up and, generally, doesn't manifest the strands of deep anger you find in many non-democratic Muslim states."

In other words, for all the talk about Islam and Islamic rage, the real issue is: Islam in what context? Where Islam is imbedded in authoritarian societies it tends to become the vehicle of angry protest, because religion and the mosque are the only places people can organise against autocratic leaders. And when those leaders are seen as being propped up by America, America also becomes the target of Muslim rage.

But where Islam is imbedded in a pluralistic, democratic society, it thrives like any other religion. Two of India's presidents have been Muslims; a Muslim woman sits on India's supreme court.

The other day the Indian Muslim film star and parliamentarian Shabana Azmi lashed out at the imam of New Delhi's biggest mosque. She criticised him for putting Islam in a bad light and suggested he go join the Taliban in Kandahar. In a democracy, liberal Muslims, particularly women, are not afraid to take on rigid mullahs.

Bangladesh has almost as many Muslims as Pakistan. Over the past 10 years, though, without the world noticing, Bangladesh has had three democratic transfers of power, and in two of these, Muslim women were elected prime minister. Result: all the economic and social indicators in Bangladesh have been pointing upwards lately, and Bangladeshis are not preoccupied with hating America. Meanwhile in Pakistan, trapped in the circle of Bin Ladenism - military dictatorship, poverty and anti-modernist Islamic schools, all reinforcing each other - the social indicators are all pointing down and hostility to America is rife.

Hello? There's a message here: it's democracy, stupid! Those who argue we needn't press for democracy in Arab-Muslim states, and can rely on repressive regimes, have it all wrong. If we cut off every other avenue for non-revolutionary social change, pressure for change will burst out anyway - as Muslim rage and anti-Americanism.

If America wants to break the Bin Laden circles across the Arab-Muslim world, then, "it needs to find role models that are succeeding as pluralistic, democratic, modernising societies, like India - which is constantly being challenged by religious extremists of all hues - and support them", argues Raja Mohan, strategic affairs editor of The Hindu newspaper.
So true. For Muslim societies to achieve their full potential today, democracy may not be sufficient, but it sure is necessary. And we, and they, fool ourselves to think otherwise

[Silent_One]

Lezmaka wrote:

I just had a thought.

Is the US going to try and make (as in force) any new government in Iraq to be a democracy? What if, for some reason, the Iraqi's don't want a democracy?

The point to make is will the Iraqi's have a chance to vote for their new goverment? And if so suppose they vote for a "fundamentalist state", which, in turn, takes away the Iraqi's power to vote? What then? I mean the whole point is to allow the Iraqis the power to vote for whom they want to govern themselves, but NOT to have one-vote then no-vote.

[Silent_One]

Here's another article worth reading:

Democracy matters
If Islam is ever to undergo a reformation, as Christianity and Judaism did, it's only going to happen in a Muslim democracy

By Thomas L. Friedman
October 9, 2002
The Iranian

BANGALORE, India - The more time you spend in India the more you realize that this teeming, multiethnic, multireligious, multilingual country is one of the world's great wonders - a miracle with message. And the message is that democracy matters.

This truth hits you from every corner. Consider Bangalore, where the traffic is now congested by all the young Indian techies, many from the lower-middle classes, who have gotten jobs, apartments - and motor scooters - by providing the brainpower for the world's biggest corporations. While the software designs of these Indian techies may be rocket science, what made Bangalore what it is today is something very simple: 50 years of Indian democracy
and secular education, and 15 years of economic liberalization, produced all this positive energy.

Just across the border in Pakistan - where the people have the same basic blood, brains and civilizational heritage as here - 50 years of failed democracy, military coups and imposed
religiosity have produced 30,000 madrassahs - Islamic schools, which have replaced a collapsed public school system and churn out Pakistani youth who know only the Koran and hostility toward non-Muslims.

No, India is not paradise. Just last February the Hindu nationalist B.J.P. government in the state of Gujarat stirred up a pogrom by Hindus against Muslims that left 600 Muslims, and dozens
of Hindus, dead. It was a shameful incident, and in a country with 150 million Muslims - India has the largest Muslim minority in the world - it was explosive. And do you know what happened?

Nothing happened.

The rioting didn't spread anywhere. One reason is the long history of Indian Muslims and Hindus living together in villages and towns, sharing communal institutions and mixing
their cultures and faiths. But the larger reason is democracy. The free Indian press quickly exposed how the local Hindu government had encouraged the riots for electoral purposes, and the national B.J.P. had to distance itself from Gujarat because it rules with a coalition, many of whose members rely on Muslim votes to get re-elected. Democracy in India forces anyone who wants to
succeed nationally to appeal across ethnic lines.

"Even when Gujarat was burning, practically the whole of India was at peace - that is the normal pattern here," said Syed Shahabuddin, editor of Muslim India, a monthly magazine, and a
former Indian diplomat. "India is a democracy, and more than that, India is a secular democracy, at least in principle, and it does maintain a certain level of aspiration and hope for Muslims... If there were no democracy in India, there would be chaos and anarchy, because so many different people are aspiring for their share of the cake." It is precisely because of the "constitutional
framework here," added Mr. Shahabuddin, that Indian Muslims don't have to resort to terrorism as a minority: "You can always ask for economic and political justice here."

It is for all these reasons that the U.S. is so wrong not to press for democratization in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Is it an accident that India has the largest Muslim minority in the world, with plenty of economic grievances, yet not a single Indian Muslim was found in Al Qaeda? Is it an accident that the two times India and Pakistan fought full-scale wars, 1965 and 1971, were when
Pakistan had military rulers? Is it an accident that when Pakistan has had free elections, the Islamists have never won more than 6 percent of the vote?

Is it an accident that the richest man in India is an Indian Muslim software entrepreneur, while the richest man in Pakistan, I will guess, is from one of the 50 feudal families who have dominated that country since its independence? Is it an accident that the only place in the Muslim world where women felt empowered enough to demand equal prayer rights in a mosque was in the Indian city of Hyderabad? No, all of these were products of democracy. If Islam is ever to undergo a reformation, as Christianity and Judaism did, it's only going to happen in a Muslim democracy.

People say Islam is an angry religion. I disagree. It's just that a lot of Muslims are angry, because they live under repressive regimes, with no rule of law, where women are not empowered and youth have no voice in their future. What is a religion but a mirror on your life?

Message from India to the world: Context matters - change the political context within which Muslims live their lives and you will change a lot.

[Snyder]

Originally Posted by Silent_One

Nagorak wrote:

Democracy a farce? You don't get it do you? Heres an article you should read. Maybe you'll understand better the reasons behind wanting a Democracy for Iraq.
Solution lies in democracy, stupid!

Did you even try to understand what Nagorak was trying to say?
The problem is that what is called democracy is often in reality a farce, just like in Afghanistan at the moment.

Of course, establishing a democracy will be of utmost importance in the long run, the problem is that it's not so easy as it sounds - it's not done with wanting it.

[Silent_One]

Snyder wrote:

Did you even try to understand what Nagorak was trying to say?
The problem is that what is called democracy is often in reality a farce, just like in Afghanistan at the moment.

Of course, establishing a democracy will be of utmost importance in the long run, the problem is that it's not so easy as it sounds - it's not done with wanting it.

1.) I do not consider Afghanistan at this point in time to be even considered a democracy. Do you? You call what is currently going on in Afghanistan "at the moment" democracy? If thats what you call democracy then, yes, it is a farce. This will take a long time to establish, if ever.

2.) Just to be clear I never said establishing democracy will be easy. Again this will take a long time.

3.) In case you did not understand "Solution lies in democracy, stupid! is the title of the article. it was not intended as an insult on my part

[pascal]

One recent link: http://www.economist.com/agenda/disp...ory_id=1730177

Religious conflict is something the American-led invasion force hopes to avoid at almost any cost. And yet, it is mainly religious leaders who are stepping into the void left by the ousting of Saddam’s regime. They may be organising groups to direct the traffic or guard hospitals against looters, but some of the clerics have appeared determined to ensure that any new Iraqi leadership will be Islamic in character and not secular, as America would prefer.

I personally dislike any link between religion and government.

[Silent_One]

I personally dislike any link between religion and government.

agreed 100%