Is Iraqi Democracy Doomed?
Since J.D. is feeling optimistic, I'll play devil's advocate and post something that is pessimistic:
by Zen Chavet (New York Daily News 10-20-04)
_____________________________________
W's wrong: Freedom can't grow in Iraqi soil
_____________________________________
During Thursday's presidential debate, President Bush told the American people his goal in Iraq is to spread liberty and freedom.
The President believes the majority of Iraqis yearn for democracy and will express this by taking part in free elections and defending a representative government. This idea is Bush's main justification for the invasion of Iraq. It is the heart of his broader Middle Eastern policy. And regrettably, it is entirely wrong.
There are 22 member states in the Arab League, and not one of them is remotely democratic. Some, like Egypt, Syria and Libya, are military dictatorships. Others, such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia, are ruled by hereditary monarchs who base their claim on religious legitimacy.
A few, like Sudan and Somalia, are so chaotic as to be barely sovereign states at all.
What these countries share is an Arab civic culture that is authoritarian, repressive and rooted in Islam.
The Arab League's official Web site makes the connection clear. It calls Islam "more than just a religion; it is the focal point of Arab society, for Muslims and non-Muslims alike, permeating [Arab] culture at every level — political, social and economic." According to the Arab League, the Koran instructs its followers "in all fields of life, whether they be social, economic or political," and "provides the Muslim with all he or she needs to know to live a good and pious life."
Arab society raises its children to unquestioningly accept authority. Islam, after all, means "submission." Father knows best. Tribal loyalty is prized. God's laws (and those who interpret them) must be honored. Blasphemy is a life-threatening offense. In this conformist world, democracy is both unknown and unnatural. Individual choice offends the divine order of society. Gender equality is an invitation to moral madness. Infidels are obviously inferior to believers. Locating ultimate sovereignty in "the people" instead of the Koran is a mockery of God.
For a long time, I assumed that Bush knew all this, that his talk about implanting liberty in the Arab world was merely a cover for the real task of replacing fascist regimes with pro-American ones. But on Thursday, he sounded sincere. And that's a problem. Elections will doubtless take place in Iraq in January; the U.S. will see to that. People will brave bombs to go to the polls. But they won't be there, as Bush supposes, out of a love of liberty or Iraqi democracy. On the contrary, they will vote to further the fortunes of their own narrow tribes and sects.
This doesn't mean Bush was wrong to invade Iraq. After 9/11, no Mideastern dictator as hostile and unhinged as Saddam Hussein can be left to his own devices. Saddam had to go and so, sooner or later, will the fascist government in Syria and jihadist regimes of Saudi Arabia and Iran.
The U.S. has an obvious preference for pro-American rulers. It should encourage them in Iraq and beyond. But that's a luxury. National security dictates only that the U.S. create and enforce a set of rules: no supporting terrorism, no invading neighbors, no acquiring weapons of mass destruction, no threatening the flow of oil.
This is not too much to ask (and demand). What is too much is to expect an ancient society to embrace values and practices it neither understands nor approves of. If success in Iraq means enticing people to renounce a civic culture that flows from their deepest Islamic beliefs, then failure is guaranteed.
__________________________________
Any comments?
bob
by Zen Chavet (New York Daily News 10-20-04)
_____________________________________
W's wrong: Freedom can't grow in Iraqi soil
_____________________________________
During Thursday's presidential debate, President Bush told the American people his goal in Iraq is to spread liberty and freedom.
The President believes the majority of Iraqis yearn for democracy and will express this by taking part in free elections and defending a representative government. This idea is Bush's main justification for the invasion of Iraq. It is the heart of his broader Middle Eastern policy. And regrettably, it is entirely wrong.
There are 22 member states in the Arab League, and not one of them is remotely democratic. Some, like Egypt, Syria and Libya, are military dictatorships. Others, such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia, are ruled by hereditary monarchs who base their claim on religious legitimacy.
A few, like Sudan and Somalia, are so chaotic as to be barely sovereign states at all.
What these countries share is an Arab civic culture that is authoritarian, repressive and rooted in Islam.
The Arab League's official Web site makes the connection clear. It calls Islam "more than just a religion; it is the focal point of Arab society, for Muslims and non-Muslims alike, permeating [Arab] culture at every level — political, social and economic." According to the Arab League, the Koran instructs its followers "in all fields of life, whether they be social, economic or political," and "provides the Muslim with all he or she needs to know to live a good and pious life."
Arab society raises its children to unquestioningly accept authority. Islam, after all, means "submission." Father knows best. Tribal loyalty is prized. God's laws (and those who interpret them) must be honored. Blasphemy is a life-threatening offense. In this conformist world, democracy is both unknown and unnatural. Individual choice offends the divine order of society. Gender equality is an invitation to moral madness. Infidels are obviously inferior to believers. Locating ultimate sovereignty in "the people" instead of the Koran is a mockery of God.
For a long time, I assumed that Bush knew all this, that his talk about implanting liberty in the Arab world was merely a cover for the real task of replacing fascist regimes with pro-American ones. But on Thursday, he sounded sincere. And that's a problem. Elections will doubtless take place in Iraq in January; the U.S. will see to that. People will brave bombs to go to the polls. But they won't be there, as Bush supposes, out of a love of liberty or Iraqi democracy. On the contrary, they will vote to further the fortunes of their own narrow tribes and sects.
This doesn't mean Bush was wrong to invade Iraq. After 9/11, no Mideastern dictator as hostile and unhinged as Saddam Hussein can be left to his own devices. Saddam had to go and so, sooner or later, will the fascist government in Syria and jihadist regimes of Saudi Arabia and Iran.
The U.S. has an obvious preference for pro-American rulers. It should encourage them in Iraq and beyond. But that's a luxury. National security dictates only that the U.S. create and enforce a set of rules: no supporting terrorism, no invading neighbors, no acquiring weapons of mass destruction, no threatening the flow of oil.
This is not too much to ask (and demand). What is too much is to expect an ancient society to embrace values and practices it neither understands nor approves of. If success in Iraq means enticing people to renounce a civic culture that flows from their deepest Islamic beliefs, then failure is guaranteed.
__________________________________
Any comments?
bob
Comments