Democracy in Iraq?
The American Conservative Union Foundation is launching an on-line magazine: Conservative BattleLine OnLine. (Link via Hit and Run).
This is not the journal called American Conservative, in which Pat Buchanan and Taki are guiding lights. But there is a similarity in the belief that the smart course for U.S. foreign policy, even after 9/11, is basically isolationist.
One article (presumably by Editor Donald Devine) is on the prospects for democracy in Iraq. (Link wasn't working; now it's fixed). I think there are some very sound observations here. As the article suggests, it is not clear that any kind of majoritarian democracy will be possible or desirable for Iraq in the near future. There are too many minorities that would fear the loss of the kind of regional autonomy they have now, or have enjoyed in the past, and too much risk that the majority Shiites, given the opportunity, will persecute minorities.
"The unconditional bottom line of the pre-war U.S.-allied Kurd factions is regional autonomy. The non-Arab Kurds of the North are divided into two often-warring parties that are only cooperating now because both are determined to first remove the Arabs from their midst and rule themselves through their own local leaders. Most of the Arab Sunni in the West-center of the country, representing only a quarter of the population, know that majority rule means their moral vision will not be enshrined in Iraqi law. That fear for their way of life is why the Sunni triangle and Baghdad are up in arms already. This will only magnify if the Shiites win an absolute majority of governmental power."
I have not seen this point about the Sunnis made so clearly before. They may be fighting the U.S./CPA/IGC not so much out of loyalty to Saddam, as fear of anything like majority rule. This is one aspect of the fact that it may be very natural to fight for freedom, even against an apparent benefactor. I also like the point about the Sunnis' "moral vision." Among the many strands and varieties of Islam, aren't the Sunnis closer to what the President calls good Islam than the Shiites?
(Update: Mitch Potter has a big piece on the Iraqi Sunnis in the Toronto Star. His point is that there are a number of Iraqi Sunnis who oppose the U.S. occupation or at least resist majority rule by Shiites, and who have no loyalty for either Saddam or mujahadeen from other countries.)
The Bush Administration is no longer suggesting that the "insurgents" consist largely of non-Iraqis. For one thing, doing so might mean admitting that the U.S. invasion has made things worse instead of better. But there is also plenty of evidence that the insurgents are predominantly Iraqis.
The article says federalism, which can reflect the many ethnic and regional differences, is probably more important than majoritarian democracy, and it warns that any lawful lasting regime will be more difficult to bring about than was the case at the American founding. Then it ends on a sober but relatively cheerful (from the U.S. perspective) note:
"The good news is that the end of the U.S. occupation is in sight and the military and civilian leaders are moving enthusiastically and rationally to implement the plan. President Bush has already announced that the number of troops will be reduced from 132,000 to 100,000 by April 2004. The scattered forces necessary during the interim are being consolidated in an operation "local standoff" so that they will become less vulnerable to attack, especially in Baghdad, after the Iraqis take control. One senior officer predicted that the number of fixed locations would be down to a handful by April in Baghdad and to a few score in the rest of the country. He flatly said the occupation would be over by the end of 2005, with the remaining coalition troops left in isolated and well-defended forts. The turnover to local councils and police is already in advanced stages and the Iraqi army is being formed on an expedited basis.
"But the political dangers remain. The Shi'a hear all of the glib U.S. talk about democracy and think that means that they will be in charge and be able to do whatever they want. The 2003 World Values Study showed that 60 percent of Arabs worldwide said democracy is "the best form of government." Among the American people, only a minority said democracy is best. The president and his administration need to become as wise as their own people. It would not be a bad idea for them to re-read the Founders' "Federalist Papers" to refresh their memory about the dangers of majoritarian democracy and for them to start talking about the rule of law, separation of powers and federalism. This combination worked for us and is the only possible solution for the Iraqis that will not lead to majority authoritarianism and harm to American's worldwide interests."
This makes a nice fit with Kaplan's speculation about Baker's mission. Baker will focus on making Iraq look as good as possible, for the President's re-election chances, by next summer. This is not exactly the same as spreading democracy, although it is likely to be a considerable improvement, for many Iraqis, over Saddam's regime.
|
