"Democracy" in Iraq

If there is still any question that the upcoming "elections" in Iraq won't produce anything even resembling a legitimate democratic government, this should put those doubts to rest:

Iraq's Election Commission has begun disclosing the names of candidates running in Sunday's poll amid fears they might be targeted by Sunni insurgents.

The names of the majority of candidates remained secret in order to protect them from terrorists led by Abu Musab Zarqawi, who has declared war on the elections to select a legislative council which will be entrusted with drafting Iraq's new constitution.

"Publishing the names of candidates only five days before the elections is aimed at ensuring an honest process and introducing them to potential voters," a statement by the commission said Tuesday.

Five days to get to know the candidates?  That's completely absurd, given that more than 7,000 candidates are running for the National Assembly -- 19,000 if you count seats for the Kurdish house and the provincial councils.  I'm willing to believe the Iraqi election commission is genuinely concerned for the safety of the candidates -- and that concern is certainly justified.  But disclosing the names of candidates five days before the election overwhelmingly favors candidates who are already on the national stage and thus have disproportionate access to the Iraqi media (Allawi, anyone?).  Opposition candidates and candidates from smaller parties simply have no chance.

A "grand moment in Iraqi history" indeed.

Comments

[Tung Yin]

It's clearly a bad situation, but I'm curious what you think a better alternative is.

1) Not to have invaded; only Saddam is on the "ballot."

2) Put the names up earlier; lots of candidates get assassinated, other people drop out or don't run.

3) ????

Because otherwise it seems to me that even apart from our intervention/invasion, countries that are struggling to get to democracy would find their efforts squashed by a few hardcore terrorists willing to assassinate candidates and use terrorism as a weapon.

[A. Rickey]

Additionally, it's worth wondering exactly what system of voting is being used anyway. If people are voting primarily for party lists, then releasing the names of individual candidates is less important. (Sort of like how many folks in England don't know who their MP--or especially their Euro MP--actually is, but know that they've voted for their party.) Indeed, if these are actually party lists, then the 7,000 candidates may not be that high a number: parties who have submitted the maximum number of names on their list, but can only hope to get a tiny fraction in proportional voting, regularly put forward candidates who don't have much realistic hope, and no one knows who these people are.

Certainly it's not ideal, but one wonders if by declaring this "illegitimate," you're actually making the perfect the enemy of the good.

[Brian]

Complaints about the legitimacy of elections? Complaining about the unfairness of the process? Sounds just like the Democrats after they lose another election here. Just from your comments Kevin, I'd say the Iraqi elections are already an astounding, American-sttyle success!!!

Kevin, put aside your Bush hatred for a moment and support the Iraqi people. Give them the support they truly need. If this same attitude prevailed in the 1940's, we wouldn't have Japan and Germany as allies. If there is one thing that Bush is 100% right about, when people can choose between freedom and tyranny, they'll choose freedom everytime.

By the way, isn't this the same thing we heard about Afghanistan just a few months ago? How quickly we forget.

[Kevin Jon Heller]

Tung,

I'm going with [3] -- postpone the election until order and security are restored to the country, so the vote serves the interests of the Iraqi people, not just George Bush (who doesn't care about actual democracy in Iraq, just the political points he'll score by pointing to the "election" and claiming "we won") and Iyad Allawi (who wants an early election sohis control over the media and public presence will ensure the "election" goes his way).

Conservatives will no doubt whine that postponement means "giving into the terrorists" -- but if that's true, it's only because the election was scheduled, for political reasons, far earlier than it should have been.

[Tung Yin]

I'm going with [3] -- postpone the election until order and security are restored to the country, so the vote serves the interests of the Iraqi people

But this may be something of a chicken and egg problem, in that by postponing the election, we further prolong our perceived "occupation," which makes it more difficult to restore order and security.

[Buster]

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc anyone?

What an interesting strawman KJH has constructed. The construction is clever because it is impossible to lose any debate. The only flaw is that it is short on substance resembling any actual solution. What is does is allow KJH to say "I told you so" no matter the outcome.

Delay the elections? Then he can yell "empire" while the USA occupies Iraq.

Hold the elections? Then he can yell "illegitimate" at the outcome.

God forbid an Iraqi terrorist be stung by a bee during the time we occupy Iraq (assuming the elections are "rescheduled") because then he can yell "abuse".

What a sad world that must be to live in. Bitter. Barren. Cold. Desolate.

Perhaps Iraq isn't much better, but the Iraqis do have one apparent advantage over KJH - that being they are making positive progress with each passing day. So KJH can have his bitterness and hatred and vitriol; as for me, I am going to bet the house on history. Iraq may or may not be a hell-hole right now, but I will bet the farm it will not be that way in thirty years.

Unless KJH gets his way, that is.

[Kevin Jon Heller]

Leave it to Buster to minimize the systematic mistreatment and torture of inmates at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere by comparing it to a bee sting. Typical of the lunatic right -- minimize (or simply ignore) anything that conflicts with their head-in-the-sand worldview.

I'd take seriously Buster's "empire" claim, but according to the administration our troops will be in Iraq until at least the end of 2006 -- so sham elections certainly aren't going to change that. In fact, the US general in charge of the troops said just yesterday he's not sure if the Iraqis security forces are EVER going to be strong enough to defeat the insurgents.

And my world-view's cold? It seems to me that the only cold world-view here is the one that doesn't care about the 1500 troops that have died as a result of Bush's folly, the $250 billion (and counting) we've wasted on a useless and counterproductive war, and all the future victims we will see of an al-Qaida movement that even the right-wing think-tanks now admit has used Iraq as the ultimate recruitment tool. What's cold is justifying those all-too-real facts by claiming that the US has brought "democracy" to Iraq, even though that "democracy" doesn't exist and the living conditions of most Iraqis continue to decline (at the same time as Halliburton et. al continue to enrich themselves at the Iraqis' expense). It's always the same with the lunatic right: as long as people have the abstract right to vote, it doesn't matter that they have no one to vote for, no genuine political participation, and no standard of living sufficient to allow them to function as genuine members of civil society.

As for history, I think it demonstrates with remarkable clarity the impossibility of imposing democracy at the barrel of a gun.

I'm going to enjoy Buster's house.

[Kevin Jon Heller]

I'm going to enjoy Buster's farm, too.

[A. Rickey]

As for history, I think it demonstrates with remarkable clarity the impossibility of imposing democracy at the barrel of a gun.

You know, I'd think that several million Japanese might disagree with you. Though, nicely, back in 1948 there were those who were insistent that we would never get democracy to take root in Japan as well.

I don't know about how comfortable your world is. Your view of history is amusing, however.

[Kevin Jon Heller]

You think democracy in Japan is the result of America's victory in WW2 -- and MY view of history is amusing? Ever heard of Taisho Democracy, normally dated from 1912-1926, in which democracy flourished in Japan? If not for the fact that Japan already had democratic institutions (see below), we would not have been able to restore democracy after WW2 -- as indicated by the fact that the US-written Constitution in 1946 was actually adopted an amendment to the 1889 Meiji Constitution. The Meiji Constitution, which was based on the British-German model, outlined the role of the Emperor and the Imperial Family, the rights of citizens, the structure of the national legislature (Imperial Diet), the roles of Ministers of State and judiciary, and rights of taxation.

I know the right doesn't like to let an inconvenient thing like history get in the way of its ideology, but really...

[Buster]

Hold on... Hello? Who? Oh, yeah! He's here. Hey, Kevin! It's the kettle calling for you.

Obviously, you have nothing constructive to offer, Kevin. All you have is hatred. It is your oxygen, and your dependency on hate will not let you see events as they are, only as you wish them to be.

Show me a person who isn't for torture and I will show you a liar. Anyone who claims to be against torture hasn't been put in the right situation. Reference : Yale/Milgram Study. 65% of us will torture another ONLY BECAUSE WE WERE TOLD TO DO SO. So go stow the high horse, Kevin. You haven't established yet you aren't among the 65%, bluster and vitriol aside.

Now, let's get one thing straight - I didn't say your worldview was cold. I said your WORLD was "Bitter. Barren. Cold. Desolate". From your postings thus far, you give one the impression every nook and cranny is filled with hatred. An all-consuming hatred burning with a brightness that would eclipse one thousands suns. With that much hatred, how could your world be anything else? As an example, I have yet to see a word about the US forces who have died (and are still dying) in Kosovo for no purpose related to the safety or security of the USA. Talk about useless and counterproductive! Yet, I surmise these deaths are somehow okay with you.

Further, speaking of enrichment, you are mute on the subject of Saddam enriching himself at the expense of the Iraqi people you would have us believe you care about. The silence matches the quiet on the subject of Saddam butchering the Kurds and Iraqis. Better a murdering dictator you know than a democracy you don't, eh?

As to the subject of standard of living, tell me this - how high a standard of living did the average Iraqi woman enjoy in Saddam's or Qusay's rape rooms before the US military deposed Saddam? I may not be an expert on the subject, but something tells me most Iraqi women, if not all, would rather be under the bootheel of the USA than Qusay. Also, I point out that you have a warped idea of "civil society" if it includes anything to do with Saddam. Somehow, I can't picture feeding people into wood chippers fitting the generally accepted definition of "civil".

Finally, there is one important counter to your view that democracy has never been established at the point of a gun - the USA itself. First communistic, then a confederation, the point of a gun allowed a very important democracy to be established and then flourish into the Republic it is today. Truly, mighty oak trees from little acorns grow.

Unless Kevin comes along and stomps them into dust so he can tell us he knew all along they wouldn't grow...

[A. Rickey]

Yes, Prof. Heller, I am well-acquainted with the Taisho Democracy. Indeed, I've read most of the Meiji Constitution in the original. Japanese political and economic history--particularly the transformation from Tokugawa shogunate to the Meiji institutions--is something of a hobby of mine (besides being a major portion of my undergraduate degree).

Nevertheless, many contemporary thinkers (likely those who would describe themselves today as the "reality-based community") during SCAP's occupation did not take the Taisho democracy to be a sign that Japan's culture was conducive to democracy. After all, Taisho was a relatively brief period of "flourishing" which was bracketed by the Meiji Period and Showa militancy. Debates on land reform, dissolution of the keiretsu, and the character of the new constitution all reflected this disagreement, often between SCAP and the State Department.

Twenty years from now--or even five--you may be reading articles talking about deep-seated trends in Arab culture which make it fertile grounds for democracy. History has a tendency to get written that way. In the meantime, please do keep commenting on SCAP and the occupation. Once I'm done with my Note, it should be interesting to start talking about historical examples with someone who obviously knows so much about one of my favorite topics.