CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Democracy in Iraq
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Democracy in Iraq

post #1 of 27
12/2/03 at 8:09pm
Thread Starter 
From the NY Times:

Iraq's Shiites Insist on Democracy. Washington Cringes.
By Alex Berenson

Sunday 30 November 2003

For seven months, the United States has tried to finesse two crucial questions about the future of Iraq: How much control will the country's Shiite majority have over the drafting of a constitution? And how Islamic will that constitution be?

The answers could determine whether Iraq becomes a multiparty democracy, an Islamic theocracy, or even slides into civil war.

Last week, those questions took on a new urgency. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most important Shiite religious leader in Iraq and probably the most powerful local leader of any kind, said he opposed the American plan to turn over power to an Iraqi government next year without direct elections.

Ayatollah Sistani has vast influence over Iraq's 15 million Shiites, and so far he has urged them to show patience with the occupation. But he has insisted that delegates elected by popular vote write Iraq's constitution and approve its new government.

"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."

That view has opened a rift between the Shiite majority, roughly 60 percent of Iraq's population, and the Sunnis and Kurds, each about 20 percent of the population. (The Kurds, who dominate northern Iraq, are themselves Sunni Muslim but have little in common with the Arab Sunnis, who ran Iraq under Saddam Hussein and are usually referred to only as Sunnis.) Nor can the United States afford to ignore the Shiite position, analysts say.

The Shiite leaders "have a tremendous amount of clout," said Kenneth Katzman, senior Iraq analyst for the Congressional Research Service. "They can set off major, major demonstrations of hundreds of thousands of people at the drop of a hat."

In addition, it is unclear whether the United States, whose motives for invading Iraq are regarded with skepticism by many, will feel it can oppose a clear call for popular democracy — exactly what the United States said it wanted to bring to Iraq.

http://truthout.org/docs_03/120203B.shtml
Reply
post #2 of 27
12/2/03 at 9:31pm
Bush will look like a hypocrite if he said he wants democracy in Iraq then do the exact opposite, by appointing their own people to run the government and draft the Constitution. Then again, he probably doesn't mind since he is already one.
Reply
post #3 of 27
12/2/03 at 10:33pm
Just like Bush sr. in '91, encouraging the people to overthrow Saddam, then leaving them to die when too many Shiites got involved.
Reply
post #4 of 27
12/3/03 at 2:07am
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the elections plan as it is right now is to hold caucuses, which technically are democratic elections. They may not be American-style direct representation in the strictest sense of the word, but it's hardly not democracy.
Reply
post #5 of 27
12/3/03 at 4:47am
Democracy does not mean strict direct representation. The Shia cleric wants elections now, because the Shia are the mayority in the country, and guess how they're going to vote? Once that happens, and wihout a proper constitution, they can either start a Theocracy and/or wipe out at the very least the Sunni minority.

The idea is to setup the constitution, and some sort of federalized government where the minority ethnic groups are not overpowered by one group as before (Sunnis ruling over Shiites).

So the process is a bit slower, as it should be.
Reply
post #6 of 27
12/4/03 at 12:21am
Seperation of Church and State is imoprtant in this country and if they aren't careful in Iraq it will be ruled by religion. That's why there isn't general elections there now. Would you rather the religous fanatics rule the country?

Democracy and freedom will take time. They need to get it right, get a good constitution that isn't ruled by the Quran. If it did we'd be right back at war with them.
Reply
post #7 of 27
12/4/03 at 12:57pm
You would? Why?
Reply
post #8 of 27
12/4/03 at 1:09pm
Because the Quran teaches hate for America. Everyone knows that.
Reply
post #9 of 27
12/4/03 at 1:13pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Anyawatchin Angel
Seperation of Church and State is imoprtant in this country and if they aren't careful in Iraq it will be ruled by religion. That's why there isn't general elections there now. Would you rather the religous fanatics rule the country?

Democracy and freedom will take time. They need to get it right, get a good constitution that isn't ruled by the Quran. If it did we'd be right back at war with them.
So we liberated them to enslave them to American legal and religious principles?

Oooooooooooookay. If you think a country separated into strict religious sects and subsects won't have religion as a part of any government that binds them together, you're mad.
Reply
post #10 of 27
12/4/03 at 1:18pm
nobody is saying for their religous values aren't important or won't influence parts of their gov't but it can't be in their constitution. All they need is one religous zelot to distort the Quran like say Osama bin Laden, and any progress we made is finished.

Do you really want a country that's based on faith and not facts?
Reply
post #11 of 27
12/4/03 at 1:29pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Anyawatchin Angel
Do you really want a country that's based on faith and not facts?
It's not really our choice, though. If the people want a theocracy, shouldn't we let them have it? Isn't that democracy?
Reply
post #12 of 27
12/4/03 at 1:49pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Anyawatchin Angel

Do you really want a country that's based on faith and not facts?
Since you asked, no. I'm not a big fan of religion in government. But consider your own government's position on stem cell research, abortion, and gay marriage. Your government certainly caters to the religious nature of its population. And what does everybody do whenever the president, any president, shows up? They all pray. Pray, pray, pray. Fine, if that's the game everyone wants to play. I think your government is full of religious nuts, but if that's the way you like it, fine. Shouldn't Iraq's people get a government that caters to the people's religion if they want it? You've got one, after all.
Reply
post #13 of 27
12/4/03 at 2:24pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Anyawatchin Angel
nobody is saying for their religous values aren't important or won't influence parts of their gov't but it can't be in their constitution. All they need is one religous zelot to distort the Quran like say Osama bin Laden, and any progress we made is finished.

Do you really want a country that's based on faith and not facts?
Iraq should be able to determine their own destiny, whether we agree with it or it "undoes progress" or not.

Period.

It's their country. I would say as long as they aren't threatening us, we should leave them be, but clearly that's no longer sufficient rationale for not being bombed into rubble by the US.
Reply
post #14 of 27
12/4/03 at 3:23pm
Quote:
Iraq should be able to determine their own destiny, whether we agree with it or it "undoes progress" or not.
In order to determine their own destiny, we have to make sure it doesn't get taken over by the same bastards that were running the place. Nor, that one of the ethnic groups wipes out 1 or 2 of the other main ethnic groups.

We're there now, it's in our interest that the place doesn't get caught up in a never ending civil war, specially one with the potential of ethnic strife.

Quote:
I think your government is full of religious nuts, but if that's the way you like it, fine. Shouldn't Iraq's people get a government that caters to the people's religion if they want it? You've got one, after all.
If you think the US is a Theocracy, there is little common ground for me to have a discussion with you. However, there's a difference between "catering" to people's religion and imposing religious laws on people.

This type of moral relativism is really astonishing. In this country we have debates on a whole number of issues, and yes, we allow relgious people to participate on the debate, and now that's been equated with Theocracies like the ones in Iran or even the Taliban. Incredible!
Reply
post #15 of 27
12/4/03 at 5:53pm
I never said it was a theocracy, I said it was full of religious nuts. The decisions rendered on the issues I mentioned are certainly based in religion. If that's how you like it, fine. You've got your mix of religion and government, whatever that may be. Iraq can have theirs.
Reply
post #16 of 27
12/4/03 at 6:00pm
say Micah if we leave Iraq and let them decide and the vote in a religous leader and their constitution is based on the Quran how long do you think it be till we were at odds with them? Esp since we are friends w/ Israel and I'd guess Iraq wouldn't be.

And Seabass we have protection from our religous nuts written into our laws. Religion is not our law-Huge differance. Pat Robertson, Billy Gram, the Pope can say whatever they want but it wont change our laws. You put rules from the Quran in Iraq's constitution and political leaders won't matter. The Religous leaders will have control of the people. And people do some pretty fucked up shit in the name of religion-flying planes into buildings, strapping bombs to their chests and running into disco's filled with 17 year olds, the crusades.
Reply
post #17 of 27
12/4/03 at 6:04pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Seabass Inna Bun
I never said it was a theocracy, I said it was full of religious nuts. The decisions rendered on the issues I mentioned are certainly based in religion. If that's how you like it, fine. You've got your mix of religion and government, whatever that may be. Iraq can have theirs.
There's freedom of worship first and foremost, and there's check and balances. The system is not perfect but it works, if you don't believe it, then why are there discussions and policies still being discussed today with no religious wars in place. If the system didn't work, the Judge with the Ten Commandements would have had the last word. I guess he didn't get the memo about the religious nuts that run this govt. and how he should have asked them for a favor.

You cite some other examples that have more to do with cultural values and social mores than just religion. It's not as simple as just religious nuts, but it's much more complicated than that.

The point is, the option we want here is that the govt doesn't turn into a repressive Theocracy, and that there is no etchinc civil war. It's pretty simple, but if you want to compare those 2 things with the situation in the US, be my guest.
Reply
post #18 of 27
12/4/03 at 6:11pm
Quote:
Originally posted by CapitanAmerica
In order to determine their own destiny, we have to make sure it doesn't get taken over by the same bastards that were running the place. Nor, that one of the ethnic groups wipes out 1 or 2 of the other main ethnic groups.

We're there now, it's in our interest that the place doesn't get caught up in a never ending civil war, specially one with the potential of ethnic strife.


Did you even read what you wrote? In order for them to determine THEIR own destiny, WE have to.....

Sorry, but if control of "your destiny" is dependent on what I do, then you have no control. I have the control.

If those groups are going to war or go at each other, then they will whether we have troops there or not. If the majority of people there are okay with a more theocratic regime, they'll have one. It's that simple.
Reply
post #19 of 27
12/4/03 at 6:15pm
Question is, do we want to establish a government that caters to the American interest, or Iraqi? Just look at Iran. The US governement appointed their own people as the leader, but it irked the Iranian population so much that later they overthrown all the leaders and replace them with their own. I think the same thing will happen to Iraq if US is only concerned about their own interest.
Reply
post #20 of 27
12/4/03 at 6:16pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Anyawatchin Angel
say Micah if we leave Iraq and let them decide and the vote in a religous leader and their constitution is based on the Quran how long do you think it be till we were at odds with them? Esp since we are friends w/ Israel and I'd guess Iraq wouldn't be.


We'll be at odds WORSE (as we are now) if we impose our values upon them as well.

You know how many kids wanted to drag injured Americans out of vehicles and bludgeon them to death publicly before the war?

You know how many Iraqi civilians wanted to pick up arms and join with armed efforts against the United States before the war?

The heavier handed we are, the worse it'll get. We can't claim to be liberating them from anything. it's like the car salesman who tells you you can have any color you want on the lot....as long as its brown.

Better to let them decide how they're going to go. The only way our paths should cross is if they actually threaten us. Elsewise, have a nice existence.

The religious extremists will do what they do with or without state-sponsorship.
Reply
post #21 of 27
12/4/03 at 6:53pm
If we leave them at the hands of a Mullah that opresses them even worse than Saddam, then we'd be worse.

Nobody is saying they don't want the Iraqis to vote at all, there are just saying they want to ensure some basic pre-conditions are met.
Reply
post #22 of 27
12/4/03 at 6:57pm
That's not democracy (which I thought we were fighting for - since we can't find the WMD). If the people vote for a Mullah, who the hell are you to say they shouldn't have it?

Fact is, the US government doesn't give a shit about democracy in other countries and we've proven that before. All that matters in that the foreign government agrees with our policy - dictator or not.
Reply
post #23 of 27
12/4/03 at 7:08pm
It's reality, right now, they want to make sure they finish a constitution and some guarantees to prevent a disaster.

Democracy doesn't mean that the Shia mayority get to install their Mullah and start wiping out Sunis (our main opposition) and Kurds (our best allies).

That's like going to Germany and handing the government back to the Nazis after the occupation, how would you feel if you were a Jewish minority? Wouldn't you want some reasurances you are not going to get wiped out?

When we occupied Japan, we didn't just stay for a couple of months and say, ok guys ready for elections, bye, bye. We even made the Emperor renounce his divinity, which we are not even close to doing here. I think even women's sufferage was mandated in the 7 point plan.
Reply
post #24 of 27
12/4/03 at 7:16pm
Quote:
Originally posted by CapitanAmerica
There's freedom of worship first and foremost, and there's check and balances. The system is not perfect but it works, if you don't believe it, then why are there discussions and policies still being discussed today with no religious wars in place. If the system didn't work, the Judge with the Ten Commandements would have had the last word. I guess he didn't get the memo about the religious nuts that run this govt. and how he should have asked them for a favor.

You cite some other examples that have more to do with cultural values and social mores than just religion. It's not as simple as just religious nuts, but it's much more complicated than that.

I agree. I have a hard time believing the born-again Christianity of so many politicians doesn't affect their decisions, though. I don't consider the US a theocracy, but I don't consider its government to be a secular one either. It is more complicated than that, you're right. Certainly foreign policy towards Israel is influenced by religion.

The point is, the option we want here is that the govt doesn't turn into a repressive Theocracy, and that there is no etchinc civil war. It's pretty simple, but if you want to compare those 2 things with the situation in the US, be my guest.
That's a far cry from Angel's "They need to get it right, get a good constitution that isn't ruled by the Quran. If it did we'd be right back at war with them." That sounds like "Our way or the highway, baby." That won't do. I don't want Iraq to erupt into civil war either, but I don't see why a non-secular government would make war necessary.

If he means "they'd be at our throats in a heartbeat", well, that's different. Saying "they'd declare war on us" is different from "we'd have to declare war on them." I don't know if the first is true or not. Maybe. The second is deplorable.

And if the liberation angle is the one the Bush administration and its fans are sticking with, then the official position ought to be that Iraq can have whatever government it pleases. If it turns out hostile to the U.S., then that's the way it is. I doubt they'd be able to do much about it unless you plan on arming the country yourselves anyway.
Reply
post #25 of 27
12/4/03 at 7:30pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Anyawatchin Angel
And Seabass we have protection from our religous nuts written into our laws. Religion is not our law-Huge differance. Pat Robertson, Billy Gram, the Pope can say whatever they want but it wont change our laws. You put rules from the Quran in Iraq's constitution and political leaders won't matter. The Religous leaders will have control of the people. And people do some pretty fucked up shit in the name of religion-flying planes into buildings, strapping bombs to their chests and running into disco's filled with 17 year olds, the crusades.
This is true, somewhat. Bush publicly put the smackdown on Pat Robertson a couple of times now, hasn't he? And rightly so. Religion doesn't influence your laws so much as it does your leaders, methinks. That's how I see it. I'm not just talking about the current presidency, either. I mean generally.

If Iraq wants things the same way, or more so, then so be it. It wouldn't be my first choice, no. But if that's what they want, then that's what they should get. Otherwise...War! is not a position I can really get behind.
Reply
post #26 of 27
12/4/03 at 7:37pm
Quote:
If Iraq wants things the same way, or more so, then so be it. It wouldn't be my first choice, no. But if that's what they want, then that's what they should get. Otherwise...War! is not a position I can really get behind.
I don't think the goal is to micromanage their government to the point of having US style separation of Church and state, but the goal is to make sure the govt. is representative of all the groups and that the mayority doesn't overrun everybody else.

The structure of the US govt. has many safeguards that allow this to happen, that's why they're waiting for a constitution. Besides, the constitution should come first before the president is elected, since a consitution defines what a country and it's presidency / leadership is.

When the US invaded my native country, they dismantled the military. That was an arbitrary decision they made, which I'll forever be thankful for. Sometimes, you have to do that in order to guarantee the freedom of the masses and the weak.
Reply
post #27 of 27
12/5/03 at 9:16pm
Quote:
Originally posted by CapitanAmerica
I don't think the goal is to micromanage their government to the point of having US style separation of Church and state, but the goal is to make sure the govt. is representative of all the groups and that the mayority doesn't overrun everybody else.
I think the goal is purely economic and the US couldn't care less about a fair or good or right government in Iraq, to be honest. Just as long as it's stacked in the US's favour, that's the main thing. The perfect Iraqi government that tells the US to leave and never set foot in Iraq again wouldn't go over very well, would it?
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Democracy in Iraq