Is Iraq ready for Democracy?

R

RZAL

Guest
If you have followed any of my postings you will see that I have taken a hard stance on freedom in Iraq. I have preached it here and I have preached it there, “LET IRAQ BE A FREE NATION”.

This thread has nothing to do with my political position on Iraq, instead I’m asking a very important question: Is Iraq ready for democracy? When all is said and done, can the Iraqi people govern themselves?

Carebear said:
There's a book called Illiberal Democracy which points up the risk of installing democracy in a culture which doesn't first embrace the other constitutional liberalist ideas of rule of law, secularism, protection of rights et al.

Most current Western democracies evolved those ideals while still, in practice, being autocratic in government, effective democracy came later.

So, as listed above, there is a real risk of "democracies" which lack or set aside those bedrock values voting in tyranny. The hope is that Iraq is sufficiently "Western" in outlook to uphold those deeper values while democracy works its magic.

The Rise of Illiberal Democracy
Summary: Around the world, democratically elected regimes are routinely ignoring limits on their power and depriving citizens of basic freedoms. From Peru to the Philippines, we see the rise of a disturbing phenomenon: illiberal democracy. It has been difficult to recognize because for the last century in the West, democracy -- free and fair elections -- has gone hand in hand with constitutional liberalism -- the rule of law and basic human rights. But in the rest of the world, these two concepts are coming apart. Democracy without constitutional liberalism is producing centralized regimes, the erosion of liberty, ethnic competition, conflict, and war. The international community and the United States must end their obsession with balloting and promote the gradual liberalization of societies.

Fareed Zakaria is Managing Editor of Foreign Affairs and a Contributing Editor for Newsweek.
For more information go here.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19971...-zakaria/the-rise-of-illiberal-democracy.html

A Word from the Past

“The divine Cato knew every Roman citizen by name, and never assumed any preeminence; yet Cato found, and his memory will find, respect and reverence in the bosoms of mankind, until this world returns into that nothing, from whence Omnipotence called it. That the people are not at present disposed for, and are actually incapable of, governments of simplicity and equal rights, I can no longer doubt. But whose fault is it? We make them bad, by bad governments, and then abuse and despise them for being so. Our people are capable of being made anything that human nature was or is capable of, if we would only have a little patience and give them good and wholesome institutions; but I see none such and very little prospect of such. Alas! I see nothing in my fellow-citizens, that will permit my still fostering the delusion, that they are now capable of sustaining the weight of SELF-GOVERNMENT: a burden to which Greek and Roman shoulders proved unequal. The honor of supporting the dignity of the human character, seems reserved to the hardy Helvetians alone. If the body of the people will not govern themselves, and govern themselves well too, the consequence is unavoidable-a FEW will, and must govern them. Then it is that government becomes truly a government by force only, where men relinquish part of their natural rights to secure the rest, instead of an union of will and force, to protect all their natural rights, which ought to be the foundation of every rightful social compact. (A FARMER Antifederalist No. 3, March 7, 1788).



The Patriot "Freedom is not Free"
 
My fear is that the Iraqi people are to used to being under a dictator that they will fear the candidates in elections, and that they will blindly follow their leader. This could easily lead to another dictator taking over now that saddam is gone.
But, the elections are the only way forward, even though they aren't really that democratic, things ARE going forward towards the better. Imo the us should start to pull out soon, while training iraqis to handle themselfs.
The insurgents are mad about the us being there, so if the us left, things might calm down.
 
hmmm let's see, the current guy (allawi) is a terrorist and murderer ...I think whomever takes over the reins will probably be cut from the same mold as Allawi. I really think the idea of democracy in iraq is a sound one ..the actual application of it, isnt.
 
The oppressed become the future oppressors.

I'm not saying that's guaranteed to happen in Iraq, but you need to be realistic. This is their first attempt at democracy, and it's going to take a long time before it reaches the kind quality that your average western nation has. I have no doubt in my mind that the transition will be a rough one. There's a lot of room for regressing back into a dictatorship, even if under the facade of democracy.
 
As of right now, no. There are too many clashes between various groups that go way beyond just bickering. These people have been fighting with eachother probably before we even had our own democracy and all the sudden we walk in there with the intent of calming those tensions. No, it doesn't work that way with a simple vote. A large part of their society is governed by their religious beliefs.

My guess is that the insurgents know the names of the candidates and are now going to try to assassinate them. Id say that its highly probable. But we'll see what happens.
 
There was a real good program about this on Dutch TV http://www.vpro.nl/programma/tegenlicht/afleveringen/18247440/ ,
if you wanna watch it, you need realplayer, and you just click on the rightside where it says VIDEO, the video is very much worth the watching, it's also 500kb per second streamed so you won't have to wait for it to load, oh yeah and the first 2/3 minuts are in Dutch but the rest is in English.

It is very intersting, it says about the same thing as the first post does, but go's deeper and gives more info.
 
can you translate the first 3 minutes? :E I'll watch it tonight when I get a chance ...keep these european programs coming, we dont get all that much european content on this side of the pond
 
MaxiKana said:
My fear is that the Iraqi people are to used to being under a dictator that they will fear the candidates in elections, and that they will blindly follow their leader. This could easily lead to another dictator taking over now that saddam is gone. But, the elections are the only way forward, even though they aren't really that democratic, things ARE going forward towards the better. Imo the us should start to pull out soon, while training iraqis to handle themselfs. The insurgents are mad about the us being there, so if the us left, things might calm down.
People Will Generally Follow Authority

Whatever else they do, all legal systems recognize, create, vary and enforce obligations. This is no accident: obligations are central to the social role of law and explaining them is necessary to an understanding of law's authority and, therefore, its nature. Not only are there obligations in the law, there are also obligations to the law. Historically, most philosophers agreed that these include a moral obligation to obey, or what is usually called “political obligation.” Voluntarists maintained that this requires something like a voluntary subjection to law's rule, for example, through consent. Non-voluntarists denied this, insisting that the value of a just and effective legal system is itself sufficient to validate law's claims. Both lines of argument have recently come under intense scrutiny, and some philosophers now deny that law is entitled to all the authority it claims for itself, even when the legal system is legitimate and reasonably just. On this view there are legal obligations that some of law's subjects have no moral obligation to perform.


CptStern said:
hmmm let's see, the current guy (allawi) is a terrorist and murderer ...I think whomever takes over the reins will probably be cut from the same mold as Allawi. I really think the idea of democracy in iraq is a sound one ..the actual application of it, isnt.
Hey Stern, “terrorist and murderer” I knew you couldn’t resist LOL…

Many philosophers and social scientists agree that a social order is a legal system only if it has effective authority. An effective (or de facto) authority may not be justified, but it does stand in a special relation to justified (de jure) authority. Justified authority is what effective authorities claim, or what they are generally recognized to have.

Absinthe said:
The oppressed become the future oppressors.

I'm not saying that's guaranteed to happen in Iraq, but you need to be realistic. This is their first attempt at democracy, and it's going to take a long time before it reaches the kind quality that your average western nation has. I have no doubt in my mind that the transition will be a rough one. There's a lot of room for regressing back into a dictatorship, even if under the facade of democracy.
Today many people view America as an oppressor, just as some feared this government would become back in the late 1700 hundreds. America has not been without shame, And what of Iraq? Must it also go through similar tribulations only too end up as an oppressor? Let us hope not, lets hope “democracy works its magic”.

satch919 said:
As of right now, no. There are too many clashes between various groups that go way beyond just bickering. These people have been fighting with eachother probably before we even had our own democracy and all the sudden we walk in there with the intent of calming those tensions. No, it doesn't work that way with a simple vote. A large part of their society is governed by their religious beliefs.

My guess is that the insurgents know the names of the candidates and are now going to try to assassinate them. Id say that its highly probable. But we'll see what happens.
I think everyone understands this process will take time. It won’t happen overnight, it may even take years before we see Iraq bloom. Why have these people been fighting for years? Is it because of their Religious beliefs, or tyranny using their beliefs against them?



The Patriot "Freedom is not Free"
 
RZAL said:
Hey Stern, “terrorist and murderer” I knew you couldn’t resist LOL…

if you can prove otherwise I'll detract the "terrorist and murderer" title, until then he's just another terrorist stooge in the US' employ
 
CptStern said:
if you can prove otherwise I'll detract the "terrorist and murderer" title, until then he's just another terrorist stooge in the US' employ

but hes a major part in iraqs future.
to make Iraq safer in generations to come, this has to happen sooner or later. and allawi is the guy to to it.. im not sure why they picked him tho.
 
KoreBolteR said:
but hes a major part in iraqs future.
to make Iraq safer in generations to come, this has to happen sooner or later. and allawi is the guy to to it.. im not sure why they picked him tho.
Maybe you should pay attention more.

Why they picked him and why it is wrong has been discussed so many times. :|
 
CptStern said:
if you can prove otherwise I'll detract the "terrorist and murderer" title, until then he's just another terrorist stooge in the US' employ
Its not a matter of proof, but a matter of opinion. Prove to me that George Washington was not a terrorist or General Custard was not a terrorist. All of these men have done questionable acts, however history has a strange way of Justifying their means by the outcome. No, I'm not saying I believe the end justifies the means. It’s more like necessity, the lesser of two evils. On the other hand, I will say History is often wrote by the victor and not the defeated. So he may be a US employed terrorist stooge today, But who’s to say that two hundred years down the road he doesn’t have his own holiday and thought of as Iraq’s first president and a true Iraqi patriot? Stern I am sure we could really challenge each other on this topic, but I hardly think its an appropriate discussion on an open forum. If we don’t have faith in the Iraqi’s or their leaders, how much faith do you think they will have in themselves or the ones who lead them? Have you ever heard of the labeling theory?

Ok now for the disclaimer, I am not comparing the above men with the likes of Hussein or Ladden. I am in no way justifying any terrorist activities in anyway shape or form.






The Patriot “Freedom is not Free”
 
RZAL said:
Its not a matter of proof, but a matter of opinion. Prove to me that George Washington was not a terrorist or General Custard was not a terrorist.

the guy murdered 6 prisoners in cold blood not too mention that some of the terrorist acts included a bombing of a school bus. I really dont understand how you can be so hypocritical ...you revile saddam as a terrorist supporter and murderer yet conviently ignore his replacement's similiar atrocities when it suits you
 
I hate to see another flame war get started so let me ask my question again.

Is Iraq ready for democracy?











The Patriot "Freedom is not Free"
 
who's starting a flamewar? this is on topic. I answered with an emphatic "no".
 
democracy has to happen one day in iraq.. why not be now?
people certainly showed they wanted it when they went and voted a couple of days ago :D
 
CptStern said:
the guy murdered 6 prisoners in cold blood not too mention that some of the terrorist acts included a bombing of a school bus. I really dont understand how you can be so hypocritical ...you revile saddam as a terrorist supporter and murderer yet conviently ignore his replacement's similiar atrocities when it suits you
Stern I'll say it again "So he may be a US employed terrorist stooge today, But who’s to say that two hundred years down the road he doesn’t have his own holiday and thought of as Iraq’s first president and a true Iraqi patriot?" Am I agreeing with you or disagreeing with you?

Read my first reply to you

“Many philosophers and social scientists agree that a social order is a legal system only if it has effective authority. An effective (or de facto) authority may not be justified, but it does stand in a special relation to justified (de jure) authority. Justified authority is what effective authorities claim, or what they are generally recognized to have.”

I can see where it could become a problem if the Iraqi people don’t have faith in him.

I think you have a valid point, this is a good ethical question, but there is not a damn thing we can do about it now. Iraq needs stability, Iraq needs everyone’s support. Its a good question, lets please stay on topic.






The Patriot “Freedom is not Free”
 
RZAL said:
Stern I'll say it again "So he may be a US employed terrorist stooge today, But who’s to say that two hundred years down the road he doesn’t have his own holiday and thought of as Iraq’s first president and a true Iraqi patriot?" Am I agreeing with you or disagreeing with you?

oh come on that same thing could probably be applied to saddam or to anyone for that matter ..it doesnt change the fact that the person the US put in charge of iraq is a murderer, liar and terrorist ..I dont care if future generations see him as a liberator (I sincerely doubt it) or not. I'm more concerned with the precedent set by his appointment in future excercises of democracy ..I mean, if they can appoint someone with a very questionable past because he suits their needs, what chance does a true democracy have of materializing?



RZAL said:
“Many philosophers and social scientists agree that a social order is a legal system only if it has effective authority. An effective (or de facto) authority may not be justified, but it does stand in a special relation to justified (de jure) authority. Justified authority is what effective authorities claim, or what they are generally recognized to have.”

I can see where it could become a problem if the Iraqi people don’t have faith in him.

they dont, they see him as an american colaborator which he is ..in some cases Iraqis hate allawi more than they hate the occupiers

RZAL said:
I think you have a valid point, this is a good ethical question, but there is not a damn thing we can do about it now. Iraq needs stability, Iraq needs everyone’s support. Its a good question, lets please stay on topic.

but I dont understand how you can subscribe to both points of view at the same time ..."allawi is a tyrant in the making" and "democracy is in the making" ..both ideas cancel each other out
 
Our goverment is trying to fight this so called "war on terrorism" (refer to the vid in the power of nightmares thread)...yet they are supporting a terrorist?
 
The so-called fore-fathers were terrorists.
My ancestors were terrorists.

Lady Liberty is the mother of rebellion. :)
 
GiaOmerta said:
The so-called fore-fathers were terrorists.
My ancestors were terrorists.

Lady Liberty is the mother of rebellion. :)
It seems like we got ourselves in a very weird position then.

On one hand..this country was in some sense founded with terrorism.

Then on another our goverment hates it and wants to rid the world of it.
 
Sicily has been occupied scores of times through out history.
It was the French's turn in the late 1200s.
The Sicilians eveuntally had enough of it and revolted, within three days every Frenchmen in Sicily had been killed. Sicilians who had been married to any French were also beaten and killed. Like I always say.... dont mess up a good thing and that's that.
 
Tr0n said:
It seems like we got ourselves in a very weird position then.

On one hand..this country was in some sense founded with terrorism.

Then on another our goverment hates it and wants to rid the world of it.


All RZAL is saying is the people blur the lines to fit their agenda, not unlike what stern does about Allawi. Stern says he is a terrorist, but right wingers say he isn't because he was fighting against saddam's oppression, making him a freedom fighter. There were some people out there who thought Hitler was right and jews should have been exterminated, that is what they believed, and to them Hitler was a hero.
 
reagan once said that the Contras were ‘the moral equivalent of our founding fathers.’ ...so it's all just a matter of perspective and the amount of spin you put on it
 
Exactly. I figure if Allawi get's the job done so be it. If not, someone else will take the slot.
 
Bodacious said:
All RZAL is saying is the people blur the lines to fit their agenda, not unlike what stern does about Allawi. Stern says he is a terrorist, but right wingers say he isn't because he was fighting against saddam's oppression, making him a freedom fighter.

freedom fighters dont blow up school buses, freedom fighters dont murder people in cold blood after being tortured for days

edit: the hypocrisy from some of you is stifling to say the least
 
Yeah, but Washington never blew up a bus.

I think history would be less charitable to him if he had killed unarmed prisonners, or bombed civilians.

Edit: as Stern said.
 
CptStern said:
reagan once said that the Contras were ‘the moral equivalent of our founding fathers.’ ...so it's all just a matter of perspective and the amount of spin you put on it
Yup. We all have good intentions, but some of the worst things imaginable have been created by the best of intentions, wisely coined by Alan Grant.
 
CptStern said:
freedom fighters dont blow up school buses, freedom fighters dont murder people in cold blood after being tortured for days

edit: the hypocrisy from some of you is stifling to say the least
I though the Palestinians were freedom fighters though.
 
freedom fighters dont blow up school buses, freedom fighters dont murder people in cold blood after being tortured for days

Yet people from your side of the fence (Michael Moore) think the terrorists in Iraq are freedom fighters.

See what I mean? Blur the lines to fit your agenda.
 
Bodacious said:
Yet people from your side of the fence (Michael Moore) think the terrorists in Iraq are freedom fighters.

See what I mean? Blur the lines to fit your agenda.

point to me where moore links terrorists to freedom fighters
 
GiaOmerta said:
I though the Palestinians were freedom fighters though.

First of all, not all Palestinians are bombers.

Second, the only difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is how closely thier actions conform to the moral standards of the society that is classifying them.

By current North American standards, terrorists do not distinguish between combatants and non-combatants as military targets.

So palestinian extremists (or any group) that target civilians would classify as terrorists, yes.

Edit: as would any "insurgents" which target civilians and troops interchangeably.
Those that target only troops would classify as freedom fighters.
 
GiaOmerta said:
Sicily has been occupied scores of times through out history.
It was the French's turn in the late 1200s.
The Sicilians eveuntally had enough of it and revolted, within three days every Frenchmen in Sicily had been killed. Sicilians who had been married to any French were also beaten and killed. Like I always say.... dont mess up a good thing and that's that.

Quite pathetic! Just kill everyone...ehh...pathetic! well yea it was the 13.st but anyway...!
But it was alike durind the 2WW, with Mussolini and his asociates...at leas he was hanged before draged around the city!

Of course, GiaOmerta no offnse meant! it's just that it seems that you support this kind of behaviour...
 
CptStern said:
oh come on that same thing could probably be applied to saddam or to anyone for that matter ..it doesnt change the fact that the person the US put in charge of iraq is a murderer, liar and terrorist ..I dont care if future generations see him as a liberator (I sincerely doubt it) or not. I'm more concerned with the precedent set by his appointment in future excercises of democracy ..I mean, if they can appoint someone with a very questionable past because he suits their needs, what chance does a true democracy have of materializing?
Yes the same thing could be said about saddam, if he had remained in power and brought the people of Iraq democracy. “precedent set by his appointment in future excercises of democracy” Again you may have a point here. As for “questionable past” You may have another valid point if things go wrong.

CptStern said:
they dont, they see him as an american colaborator which he is ..in some cases Iraqis hate allawi more than they hate the occupiers
Why do they have to see him as an american collaborator? Is he guilty just by mere association or has he commented offenses against the Iraqi people since his appointment to office? What supporting evidence do you have that “Iraqis hate allawi more than they hate the occupiers”?

CptStern said:
but I dont understand how you can subscribe to both points of view at the same time ..."allawi is a tyrant in the making" and "democracy is in the making" ..both ideas cancel each other out
As I have pointed out, he may very well be a tyrant in the making, what supporting evidence do you have?

For sake of argument lets say that both of us are US Federal Prosecutors assigned to this case. Up till now you have been the lead prosecutor, in that you have gathered all of the evidence that will be used to convict Allawi. It’s now my responsibility to prepare the case for trial. The first thing I do is objectively review all of evidence because it’s my (the governments) burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Allawi is guilty as charged. This not only serves as a fact-finding process, but also prepares us for counter arguments from Allawi defense attorneys. Don’t forget that our primary goal is to ensure justice is served. Remember due process is a vital part of any democracy.


I’m a little busy right now, but if you would like to play this out perhaps both of us will learn something.




The Patriot “Freedom is not Free”
 
CptStern said:
point to me where moore links terrorists to freedom fighters


It took me long enough, but I found it:

Source

The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win.
 
bodacious said:
The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win.

ok let's break this down:


The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation

lets see ..they're iraqis and they're fighting the occupation:


in·sur·gent

1 : a person who rises in revolt against civil authority or an established government; especially : one not recognized as a belligerent


freedom fighter

n : a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority



so that covers that, next
 
Terrorist

adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities
 
This is about the 5th time ya'll have posted these definitions. We should just have a sticky thread up top with all these definitions.
 
Back
Top