January 19, 2004
TYPES OF DEMOCRACY
What exactly is the difference between western-style democracy, which these experts tell us just won’t work in Iraq, and plain, simple democracy? Is it like the difference between ordinary square dancing -- completely acceptable to Muslim societies -- and corrupt western-style square dancing? Or the difference between horse riding in the holy Islamic sense and impure, doglike western-style riding?
Or are people who say western-style democracy won’t work in Iraq actually saying that democracy won’t work in Iraq, because Iraqis are genetically stupid or backward or something? And they add that “western-style” bit to make it seem as though their opinion involves a considered critique of the west instead of being an outright slag against Iraq?
UPDATE. These Iraqis seem to find the Western democratic concept of direct elections quite appealing.
Posted by Tim Blair at January 19, 2004 09:34 PMGo have another look Tim, and you'll see that its a cartoon. Probably very similar to what you see when you look in a mirror.
Posted by: Rex at January 19, 2004 at 10:41 PMOf course, those guys don't even think we in the west are ready for western-style democracy, evidenced by the fact that we keep electing people like President Bush and John Howard.
just like the disaster of western democracy in the East.
Japan is a basket case, what with its hand out the whole time, and UN peacekeepers breaking up the crowds outside the Lexus dealerships on the Ginza.
Maybe it's to differentiate it from the democracies where 100% of the electorate vote for the president, or Richard Armitage's "a sort of democracy".
Posted by: Andjam at January 19, 2004 at 10:59 PMJapan is a basket case? Perhaps someone is nostalgic for the good old days of Tojo.
I would like the geniuses who complain about democracy to put forward a better way of organizing power in society so that the rest of the world might plant the kernal of their wisdom and harvest the fruit of a new age.
Posted by: Junkyard God at January 19, 2004 at 11:14 PMJunkyard god- never heard of satire, or irony?
Jeebus!
I remember Greg Sheridan writing about this a while ago. His argument was that the left will basically support any argument to bolster their anti Americanism, no matter how much it contradicts anything they may have said earlier. Which is probaly true, look at their reaction to Latham scoring the top job for example.
Posted by: gaz at January 20, 2004 at 12:09 AMRex,
Using the computer without permission again? No cookie for dessert? But you did a really, really good job of spelling this time -- maybe you're ready to brush your teeth by yourself! I think it's great, the strides people like you are making...
Keep it up!
Posted by: Jerry at January 20, 2004 at 12:14 AMGaz - yep, with the left, facts are irrelevant. It's the theory that's important. If the facts don't fit, they must be discarded.
Now, I won't say it will be easy to build a functioning democracy in Iraq - particularly with the Islamofascists eager to grab anything they can - but I see no reason why it can't work, nor any better way to run the country.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at January 20, 2004 at 12:18 AMDemocracy has been a failure everywhere it has been installed outside the western world. Look at Japan, South Korea and Taiwan! Disasters, all of 'em.
Posted by: madne0 at January 20, 2004 at 12:40 AMI am surely going to get into big trouble for saying this, but the consanguinity of Iraqi tribal society may well hamper the cause of democracy. The reason is the extent of familial inter-marriage amognst kinsmen. This reinforces tribal loyalties, which are patriarchal, at the expense of national loyalties, which are democratic. Steve Sailer has investigated this issue in Cousin Marriage Conundrum: The ancient practice discourages democratic nation-building
Extensive inbreeding has created localized clans that are genetically similar, and therefore likely to feel affection, altruism, loyalty, and attraction to each other. Such intense devotion to family undercuts patriotism, wider community feeling, devotion to the neutral institutions of civil society, and the principles of national equality and meritocracy...although neoconservatives constantly point to America's success at reforming Germany and Japan after World War II has evidence that it would be easy to do the same in the Middle East, the deep social structure of Iraq is the complete opposite of those two true nation-states, with their highly patriotic, cooperative, and (not surprisingly) outbred peoples. The Iraqis, in contrast, more closely resemble the Hatfields and the McCoys.
The New York Times follows up Sailer's article: Iraqi Family Ties Complicate American Efforts for Change
This analysis is consistent with Lemonde Diplomatique's analyis: How Saddam keeps power in Iraq
It must be understood that the Iraqi state has always been weak and divided, hence it's low power to tax the periphery. The massive violence it employed, in occasional spasms after various misadventures with US strategists, was an index of it's civil weakness, not political strength:
Unlike the Nazi model, the Ba’ath version deployed Iraq’s traditional tribes and clans in key state institutions; these groups still survive in the provinces and outlying rural areas.
Hussein therefore courted the consanguinous tribes, as the US is now learning this lesson the hard way.
Although may be the US Army can pull it off.
Posted by: Jack Strocchi at January 20, 2004 at 01:11 AM
Jack - I think you are right that tribalism is a problem. I just don't think it's an insoluble one.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at January 20, 2004 at 01:20 AMThe most serious challenge to "western-style democracy" in a muslim country is illustrated by the case of Algeria, and Ali Benhaj, the charismatic leader of the banned Front for Islamic Salvation (FIS). Benhaj was recently released from prison after serving a 12-year sentence for inciting the army to rebellion and has not yet revealed his real intentions with respect to the upcoming election.
By refusing to compromise himself in exchange for an early release, Benhaj has established himself as the unquestioned hero of the most radical elements of the banned FIS.
Benhaj said in a 1990 interview that Islam was incompatible with democracy based on elections. He agreed that Islamists should use elections to win power but that, once in power, they should not accept elections that may force them out. His slogan at the time was "One Man, One Vote, Once!"
Note: the above was shamelessly cribbed from:
ALGERIA: A REAL CHOICE
by Amir Taheri
New York Post
August 3, 2003
From what I have read, Benhaj's view of the electoral process is not atypical among radical islamists. Once sharia is imposed, there is no turning back.
Once sharia is imposed, there is no turning back.
Well, not peacefully anyway.
Posted by: R. C. Dean at January 20, 2004 at 03:21 AMBangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia and Turkey have elected governments. Perhaps they are not perfect democracies but they are not despotic dictatorships either. Oh and they all have muslim populations.
Posted by: Mike at January 20, 2004 at 04:12 AM"but the consanguinity of Iraqi tribal society may well hamper the cause of democracy"
So it'll be a democracy like Italy's. Still an improvement...
Posted by: Mike G at January 20, 2004 at 05:19 AMHuh, people said democracy was incompatible with Prussian ideals (Germany), Catholic ideals (Italy, Spain, most of South America), Shinto ideals (Japan), Hindu Ideals (India).
America may succeed in bringing democracy to Iraq, it may not. Rushing things won't help.
But at the very least it won't be a regime that feeds people into paper shredders.
Culture.
Some cultures do democracy. Some do it good, some not so good.
Some (Islamist Arab) cultures are poison to democracy.
Show me one Islamist Arab culture where democracy has worked, cause I can show you quite a few where it hasn't, starting with Pakistan, Algeria, the West Bank, Egypt - and Iraq.
If'n ya culcha acts up ornery, holler fur an election ! And then the shit will hit the fan.
Posted by: Arik at January 20, 2004 at 08:16 AMI'm with Tim. Democracy can work in Iraq, easy. Sure, an Iraqi democracy is going to have to satisfy people from different tribal/genetic backgrounds, but we've been doing that in Australia (and Britain, and America) for hundreds of years. It's patronising of us to think that people Iraqi society is any different to our own, in this sense.
If democracy doesn't work, it'll be because of f-kers who prefer running around and shooting people to living in an open democratic society.
Multiculturally yours, TimT
"Democracy" is one of the most abused words in the language. I have always beeen inclined to agree with Alcibiades who told the Spartans that "democracy is acknowledged folly" and with Churchil who labelled democracy as the best worst system of government."
Democracy is only a small component of governance. More important is the rule of law and the free flow of ideas and trade. The fact is that we in the West have succeeded because we realise that Government is an added extra, not the sine qua non.
Australia is not a democacy, it is a Consitutional Monarchy. That means that we get to elect those who advise the sovereign. However, we don't elect the sovereign. Yet having a non-democratic part of our constitution has not held us back.
So let us talk less about "democarcy" and more about elective assemblies, rule of law, free trade.
Posted by: Toryhere at January 20, 2004 at 08:34 AMTribalism makes democracy more difficult but it doesn't make it impossible. Papua New Guinea would have to be one of the most tribalised countries on Earth - somewhere around 750 language groups, and no shortage of ethnic tensions - but its democratic institutions function OK most of the time, and its not about to slide into chaos and anarchy
Posted by: Willmott Fribbish at January 20, 2004 at 10:22 AMTimT: "It's patronising of us to think that people Iraqi society is any different to our own, in this sense."
Read my lips TimT: Iraqi society (read culture) is DIFFERENT to ours. It is DIFFERENT to Japans. You may or may not want to be judgemental about the difference (I sure do), but different it is.
And it is that difference that has been so detrimental to experiments in democracy in this region.
The experiments that have worked are instructive: in Turkey Kemal Ataturk CHANGED THE WHOLE CULTURE, at least partly by force of arms.
Get it in your thick skulls: our culture is unusual, it is fragile and it is under attack. It will not last if we don't defend it.
Wilmott Fribbish:
Obviously you have never been to New Guinea. It is about to slide into anarchy & chaos. It already is, by our standards. If you don't believe me then try going on a lone hiking tour.
Turkey is 98% Muslim and by all accounts, functions fairly well as a democracy.
Look there is no people in the world who can't live under a democracy, hell, if that were so, why would the West keep importing immigrants from these places. Obviously they believe that, given the chance, the majority of these people will slot quite nicely into a functioning democracy.
Posted by: Quentin George at January 20, 2004 at 03:55 PMPapua New Guinea's problems are mainly due to the idiot Whitlam rushing the timetable for self-governance. (It was originally scheduled for the 80s, but ended up early seventies).
As a result, New Guineans had little idea how to govern themselves.
Incremental democracy, like that was used in post-war Germany, is the way to go.
Posted by: Quentin George at January 20, 2004 at 04:00 PMPNG independence was the UN's idea, but Whitlam certainly didn't put up any hurdles. The place costs us a shitoad more now than it did when we were running it, and it's earnings are almost zilch, having successfully fucked up about everything in the place that produced income. Give it to the Indonesians.
Posted by: Habib at January 20, 2004 at 04:57 PMYeah, sorry Habib, should have added a caveat: it was the UN which pushed independence, but Whitlam pushed the UN timetable for it even further, so it would happen on his "watch".
Posted by: Quentin George at January 20, 2004 at 07:51 PMAustralia is not a democracy, it is a Consitutional Monarchy. That means that we get to elect those who advise the sovereign. However, we don't elect the sovereign.
The Queen is *obliged* to act on the advice of her ministers
- so our democratically elected representatives are the ones exercising the power.
Australia is a democratic constitutional monarchy - a clayton's republic.
If Australians want to become a republic in name, they can, by democratically changing the constitution.
If Sistani and his Shi'ites are able to impose theocracy on Iraq, 500 US service personnel will have died in vain and we can kiss morale and an all volunteer army goodbye.
Posted by: Theodopoulos Pherecydes at January 20, 2004 at 09:45 PMIf Sistani and his Shi'ites are able to impose theocracy on Iraq, 500 US service personnel will have died in vain and we can kiss morale and an all volunteer army goodbye.
It'd still be regime change, just not the kind we had in mind.
Posted by: Andjam at January 20, 2004 at 09:53 PMLook there is no people in the world who can't live under a democracy, hell, if that were so, why would the West keep importing immigrants from these places. Obviously they believe that, given the chance, the majority of these people will slot quite nicely into a functioning democracy.
Like he said.
Posted by: TimT at January 21, 2004 at 09:16 AM