Democracy and Iraq
It appears that Iraqis have turned out for the election of their 275 seat parliament in even higher numbers than they did in January or October. In addition, the Sunni Arabs seem to have decided to fully participate in the electoral process. I won't make predictions about how much terrorism Iraq will face in the months ahead. But I do believe this is a good time to discuss whether democracy can ultimately be successful in that nation.
Can Islam and Democracy mix?
Last week a co-worker asked me if democracy is really possible for a culture that has been ruled by autocrats for generations. My response was that prior to 1776, there was no evidence the Christianity and Democracy were compatible. I also added that if you had predicted in 1970 that Spain would be a democracy before the end of the decade, you would have been accused of being a rosy optimist. But when General Franco died, the elites of Spain smoothly transitioned the nation towards democracy. Similarly, when President Reagan shouted, "Mr. Gorbochav, tear down that wall," in the late 1980s, many pundits criticized Reagan for giving the people of East Berlin false hopes that the wall would come down.
What kind of Islam are we talking about?
An extreme version of Islam does seem incompatible with democracy. But all religions are in a constant state of redefinition. Christianity as it was practiced in the year 1600 saw nothing wrong with slavery. By 1860 much of Christianity was openly hostile to the peculiar institution.
Three nations or one?
Even if Islam and democracy are compatible, there is still the issue of ethnic and religious tribalism. See my post from a couple days ago titled Universalism versus Tribalism. The terrorism that afflicts Iraq is supported almost exclusively by the minority Sunni Arabs, who see democracy as much less attractive than ruling all of Iraq.
The American Civil War erupted in 1860-1861 when it became clear to the slaveholding South that a candidate could win the Presidency without winning a single slave state, that the US House of Representatives was overwhelmingly dominated by the free states and that the US Senate was no longer deadlocked between slave and free states. (Due to the discovery of gold in California, freemen moved to California and requested statehood before a large number slaveholders could travel there.) Minorities are often less enthusiastic about democracy compared to majorities.
Secularists to the rescue?
Iraqis who are secular in their political views have an advantage over more religious Iraqis. Secular Sunnis, Shias and Kurds are likely to have an easier time finding common ground compared to a group of religious Sunnis and Shias. (Kurds are generally more secular in their political outlook compared to their Arab compatriots.) I remain cautiously optimistic about the democracy project in Iraq. Perhaps in a few weeks we will have a better idea about the future of freedom in a tyranny dominated region.
Can Islam and Democracy mix?
Last week a co-worker asked me if democracy is really possible for a culture that has been ruled by autocrats for generations. My response was that prior to 1776, there was no evidence the Christianity and Democracy were compatible. I also added that if you had predicted in 1970 that Spain would be a democracy before the end of the decade, you would have been accused of being a rosy optimist. But when General Franco died, the elites of Spain smoothly transitioned the nation towards democracy. Similarly, when President Reagan shouted, "Mr. Gorbochav, tear down that wall," in the late 1980s, many pundits criticized Reagan for giving the people of East Berlin false hopes that the wall would come down.
What kind of Islam are we talking about?
An extreme version of Islam does seem incompatible with democracy. But all religions are in a constant state of redefinition. Christianity as it was practiced in the year 1600 saw nothing wrong with slavery. By 1860 much of Christianity was openly hostile to the peculiar institution.
Three nations or one?
Even if Islam and democracy are compatible, there is still the issue of ethnic and religious tribalism. See my post from a couple days ago titled Universalism versus Tribalism. The terrorism that afflicts Iraq is supported almost exclusively by the minority Sunni Arabs, who see democracy as much less attractive than ruling all of Iraq.
The American Civil War erupted in 1860-1861 when it became clear to the slaveholding South that a candidate could win the Presidency without winning a single slave state, that the US House of Representatives was overwhelmingly dominated by the free states and that the US Senate was no longer deadlocked between slave and free states. (Due to the discovery of gold in California, freemen moved to California and requested statehood before a large number slaveholders could travel there.) Minorities are often less enthusiastic about democracy compared to majorities.
Secularists to the rescue?
Iraqis who are secular in their political views have an advantage over more religious Iraqis. Secular Sunnis, Shias and Kurds are likely to have an easier time finding common ground compared to a group of religious Sunnis and Shias. (Kurds are generally more secular in their political outlook compared to their Arab compatriots.) I remain cautiously optimistic about the democracy project in Iraq. Perhaps in a few weeks we will have a better idea about the future of freedom in a tyranny dominated region.
posted by Steel Monkey at 12/15/2005 08:30:00 PM
<< Home