can iraq cut it as a democracy

spanner

can iraq actually become a secular democracy.
most middle eastern countries cannot not seem to adapot the notion of secular democracy.

i predict when the americans leave the place will go crazy again and another saddam will come back to torture them again.

i agree that america went there for oil and were clearly out of line in doing so, but one thing i agree with george bush and tony blair, the iraqi people have a real chance at making a better life for themselves

whats done is done, the iraqis are at a cross road and if they dont choose to proceed in peaceful means and start tribal fighting then chaos will come down on them.

wasabi

well historically there's been a fairly civilized and democratic iraqi nationalist movement - see artivle below.

you could also ask where iraq would be now without outside interference from the likes of the us, which did prop up hussein when it suited them.

this is an interesting read anyway.
http://www.fpri.org/enotes/20030327.middleeast.davis.democracyiraq.html

mike65

Iraq can be a democracy as we understand the concept but I won't held my breath.

Mike.

Typedef

I think the question is similar to asking whether or not India can be a democracy.

The cast system essentially negates the notion of democracy in any country that does not value all it's citizens equally.

The same with Iraq. Strict interpretation of Islam (to my limited knowledge on the subject) essentially precludes gender equality.

Ergo, the Western ideology of 'equality' intermeshed with 'democracy' (even though none of it's proponents really operate an equal egalitarian society) is in many ways the antithesis of 'civilisation' in these areas.

What we are effectively talking about here is a sort of reincarnation of the "White man's burdeon", bringing 'civilisation' to the savages, is in this case supplanted with bringing Western socio-political ideology to other areas of the world (ostensibly to benefit Western civilisation one might add).

It is quite possible to make Iraq into a fully participant functioning capalist society (which is all Western civilisation 'actually requires' in the base case), but, 'democratic' 'egalitarian' and ostensibly self-regulatory in this regard, not a chance.

Not without literally converting a religous ideology, in a parody of a Christian 'crusade'.

wasabi

Well as for a democratic crusade... lets not question the operation of democracy in the States but look closer to home...

I mean look at the North. We're supposed to be so ultra civilised but our immediate neighbours can't seem to manage to rule themselves successfully in the long term, so maybe we shouldn't be so complacent and superior about being better.

There was civil war in Ireland within living memory. We're just lucky we've had a reasonably calm period in recent history in which to develop our current systems of government. We're only just getting out of our postcolonial corrupt bureaucracy phase now. If it weren't for our location in Europe and the EU dragging us kicking and screaming into the modern world...

Well lets just say can anyone picture Haughey as a despotic tyrant :rolleyes:


also on that other point I don't think democracy actually requires full equality, wouldn't be quite the same as our system of course but if there's elections even if say women or people with no land or whatever aren't allowed vote it's still a democracy.

and i'd say that feminism will probably come along brilliently in a lot of muslim countries if given a chance, unfortunately this current scary fundamentalist backlash isn't good for it. but hey, it's new here too. in the grand scheme of things. we're all in transition, just it's hard to see for the change.

Typedef

Originally posted by wasabi
]. If it weren't for our location in Europe and the EU dragging us kicking and screaming into the modern world...

I disagree.

This argument is constantly used by pro-EU proponents, to justify encroachment of EU authority into Irish national soveringty, namely that "Irish are unfit to govern themselves".

Strangely the English used to say the exact same thing.... and ironically, it seems that when it comes to the EU, Irish people are so dazzled that this old colonial rhetoric can disguise itself in sheep's clothing.

also on that other point I don't think democracy actually requires full equality, wouldn't be quite the same as our system of course but if there's elections even if say women or people with no land or whatever aren't allowed vote it's still a democracy

Well if you want to get pedantic about it, Ancient Greece was a democracy, even though less then 2% of people were eligable to vote. At least I think the figure was 2%.

In any case, the word 'democracy' in it's modern context, implies, egalitarian, pluralist democracy, with universal sufferage.

and i'd say that feminism will probably come along brilliently in a lot of muslim countries if given a chance, unfortunately this current scary fundamentalist backlash isn't good for it.

Again, this is a neo-Imperialist notion... that Western ideology should supercede the religous beliefs of another society, purely based on our own self-ingratiating self-righteous so-called 'liberal' beliefs.

So Liberal in fact, that we seek to impose those beliefs onto others.

*ahem*

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
The cast system essentially negates the notion of democracy in any country that does not value all it's citizens equally.

The same with Iraq. Strict interpretation of Islam (to my limited knowledge on the subject) essentially precludes gender equality.

But gender equality has only been a recent addition to democracy. Look at any of the older democratic nations in the world, and go check when they gave women the vote.

Not only that, but every democratic nation that I can think of still puts limitations on who can and can't vote, in terms of a minimum age.

Surely that means that we don't value all of our citizens equally either by your standards, and thus are not a democracy ourselves....

jc

Hobart

Originally posted by bonkey
But gender equality has only been a recent addition to democracy. Look at any of the older democratic nations in the world, and go check when they gave women the vote.

Not only that, but every democratic nation that I can think of still puts limitations on who can and can't vote, in terms of a minimum age.

Surely that means that we don't value all of our citizens equally either by your standards, and thus are not a democracy ourselves....

jc

Is that not the nature of democracy? Opening the voting system to those deemed unsuitable, by the democratically elected government of the day, would be a contradiction in itself. IMO close to anarcial(sp?) polocies. Democracies are all well and good, but they must have some rules.

The fact that Women were not allowed to vote X number of years ago was deemed correct for those times. I don't agree with them But then again I did not live in those times.

Are you suggesting that we should have the right to vote from the moment we are born?

chill

If anyone can manage to stay on topic...

The question was 'can' Iraq cut it as a democracy ?

The answer is obviously yes. Is it likely to survive ? this is another question altogether.

The Iraqi people have a long history of civilised society but like most of the middle east it was conquered by the Islamic tide that froze the middle east in the middle ages and surpressed every concept of democracy and freedom and human imagination out of their followers.
If the Allies can follow up their liberation of 25 million people by bolstering even a pale immitation of a democratic system and if the rest of the world that would prefer to have had Saddom still in place can swing behind the Iraqi people for a change then maybe ... just maybe they'll have a chance of the kind of freedom and prosperity that we enjoy.
I hope for their sakes that they do.

Hobart

Well chill, in order for me to stay on topic would you define what you mean by democracy? And how Iraq can become one.

wasabi

Originally posted by Typedef
I disagree.

This argument is constantly used by pro-EU proponents, to justify encroachment of EU authority into Irish national soveringty, namely that "Irish are unfit to govern themselves".

Well if you look objectively at it back in those days we were still completely under the thumb of the catholic church, were hardly ruling ourselves at all. The economy was in tatters and a large amount of people were emigrating. This was not a well run country. Which is easily explained by the centuries of colonial oppression - like Iraq in fact.

Again, this is a neo-Imperialist notion... that Western ideology should supercede the religous beliefs of another society, purely based on our own self-ingratiating self-righteous so-called 'liberal' beliefs.

Nope, that wasn't what I said. What I said was that there is a strong feminist movement run by Muslim women in the less repressive Muslim states. When you get the likes of the Taliban in power that goes out the window. Women in Afghanistan before the Taliban could work, get education, etc etc. Moderate Muslim society can be as equal as ours is. Fundamentalist Muslim society is not. And fundamentalist religion is largely a backlash to western imperialism, so we may in fact be negatively affecting status of women in some places.

It's more neo Imperialist to say that ours is the only society that can change over time, all others are frozen and static than to say that other societies can also change for the better.

Ok but back to the main topic, I'd say what eventually happens in Iraq is just as dependent on what other nations do as what the Iraqis do. They clearly have potential to develop into a democracy, but if the current difficulties continue and the occupying countries don't somehow resolve it I'd say there'd be some very extreme elements that might hinder this development.

Typedef

Originally posted by bonkey
Not only that, but every democratic nation that I can think of still puts limitations on who can and can't vote, in terms of a minimum age.

Certainly, the notion of exporting Western Style democracy to a fundamentalist Islamic country, with all the associated 'rights' and 'equalities', would take on a quasi-religous type 'crusade' of Western ideology versus Islamic religous faith.

Which would be wrong of Western society to do, no matter, how self-righteous we might feel on this topic.

mr_angry

I can't see it happening in Iraq, to tell you the truth. The Americans are trying to encourage an immediate switch to free market economy, which I feel will open the door to widespread corruption. Couple that with the fact that almost all the large corporate investors will be yanks, and all money will be flowing out of Iraq itself... I just dont think it will work.

I think China is a much better example of how society should be changed - there was no knee-jerk move to capitalism, but instead a slow transition, which is still underway. Sure, there are loads of things still wrong with China, but my point is that I don't think you can move from brutal dictatorship to open free-market economy in an instant. In the case of Iraq, I fear it might bring a swift end to the proposed democracy. I hope I'm wrong.

chill

Originally posted by Hobart
Well chill, in order for me to stay on topic would you define what you mean by democracy? And how Iraq can become one.

Hardly a big question. If Iraq manages to elect it's own leaders and operate within a reasonable level of freedom for individuals for more than five years then I suggest they will have a reasonable level of democracy and I think most people in the rest of the world would rejoice.

Trying to pick holes in democracy because of this and that weakness is meaningless. All democracies have weaknesses that do not negate their essential character.

chill

Originally posted by Typedef
Certainly, the notion of exporting Western Style democracy to a fundamentalist Islamic country, with all the associated 'rights' and 'equalities', would take on a quasi-religous type 'crusade' of Western ideology versus Islamic religous faith.

I don't agree. All people's want to be free. It is a human thing not justa western thing. Islam has held the middle east captive for centuries and the people of the middle east deserve more.

Which would be wrong of Western society to do, no matter, how self-righteous we might feel on this topic. [/B]

I think it would be the right thing to do, the best thing to do and the safest thing to do to protect us from an armageddon of terrorism when the extreme islamics get a hold of the bomb.

chill

Originally posted by mr_angry
The Americans are trying to encourage an immediate switch to free market economy, which I feel will open the door to widespread corruption.

I don't see any evidence that the Americans are trying to do that at all. And democratic nations aren't immune to widespread corruption either so they are hardly mutually exclusive.

Couple that with the fact that almost all the large corporate investors will be yanks, and all money will be flowing out of Iraq itself... I just dont think it will work.

I don't agree. Early investment will be from the US but when the Iraqi people take over the proportion from the EU and asia will equal if not exceed the US.

I think China is a much better example of how society should be changed - there was no knee-jerk move to capitalism, but instead a slow transition, which is still underway.

It's be a sorry day if China was seen by anyone as a move in the right direction. A totalitarian state that brutalises dissent and controls every fact of people's lives.

Sure, there are loads of things still wrong with China, but my point is that I don't think you can move from brutal dictatorship to open free-market economy in an instant. In the case of Iraq, I fear it might bring a swift end to the proposed democracy. I hope I'm wrong.

It's always easy for people to trash hope. Russia succeeded where no one ever thought it was possible. So have several Eastern European countries. These people deserve what we have and we shouldn't stand by and accept anything less.

Hobart

Originally posted by chill
Hardly a big question. If Iraq manages to elect it's own leaders and operate within a reasonable level of freedom for individuals for more than five years then I suggest they will have a reasonable level of democracy and I think most people in the rest of the world would rejoice.

Trying to pick holes in democracy because of this and that weakness is meaningless. All democracies have weaknesses that do not negate their essential character.

Hardly a complete answer either. What are you basing this "level of freedom" on? Your own Western ideals or those accepted under Islamic tradition?

Again countries such as China have elections, albeit in a one party state. Anyone who has been to Beijing will telll you how "Westernised" it has become.

Typedef

Originally posted by chill
I don't agree. All people's want to be free. It is a human thing not justa western thing. Islam has held the middle east captive for centuries and the people of the middle east deserve more.



I think it would be the right thing to do, the best thing to do and the safest thing to do to protect us from an armageddon of terrorism when the extreme islamics get a hold of the bomb.

Don't you think that is just slightly self righteous?

Personally I think such a notion is akin to the White man brining civilisation to the Native American, or in broader terms to the 'savage' (read non-industrial culture).

The Native American culture was a highly civilised culture, it was not an industrial culture, does that mean the culture was lesser, or simply different?

In effect Western culture is pontificating a value set, and castigating a religion as savage and barbaric.

I'm not seeing any difference between your argument to 'civilise' Iraq with democracy and the rallying cry of the old African Imperialists, bringing "civilisation" [1] to the savages.


[1] Civilisation apparently entails, slaverly, apartheid, white supremicism and the exploitation of African cultures to the benefit of Western capitalism, in recent times, Shell in Nigeria and back when the UK was the dominant Imperialst power the British East Indian company
http://user.pa.net/~drivera/26britisheast.htm.

Both are examples of how Capitalism has shaped foreign policy for a government, in fact in the case of the Shell petero chemical company, it was simply a case of a large multi-national company, which had a foreign policy all of it's own, and suppoted a military Junta in Nigeria.

sovtek

Originally posted by chill
If the Allies can follow up their liberation of 25 million people by bolstering even a pale immitation of a democratic system and if the rest of the world that would prefer to have had Saddom still in place can swing behind the Iraqi people for a change then maybe ... just maybe they'll have a chance of the kind of freedom and prosperity that we enjoy.
I hope for their sakes that they do. [/B]

"Allies"...who are they?
OHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhh you mean the "coalition".
Sorry, back on topic now.

mr_angry

I don't agree. All people's want to be free. It is a human thing not justa western thing. Islam has held the middle east captive for centuries and the people of the middle east deserve more.

You know, I nearly agreed with you until you said that. That is an incredibly naive statement, and is an insult to every Islamic believer out there. Frankly, I couldn't be bothered trying to argue the point, because with that mindset, something tells me you aren't going to listen to rational debate.

I think it would be the right thing to do, the best thing to do and the safest thing to do to protect us from an armageddon of terrorism when the extreme islamics get a hold of the bomb.

I think this is verging on racism. Just because people believe in living by a strict code of Islam does not make them terrorists.

I don't see any evidence that the Americans are trying to do that at all. And democratic nations aren't immune to widespread corruption either so they are hardly mutually exclusive.

I'm not saying they are, but I think a free-market economy in Iraq will be a soft target for corruptors.

I don't agree. Early investment will be from the US but when the Iraqi people take over the proportion from the EU and asia will equal if not exceed the US.

Still leaving the country though.

It's be a sorry day if China was seen by anyone as a move in the right direction. A totalitarian state that brutalises dissent and controls every fact of people's lives.

I think that's a bit close-minded. I agree that China was a brutal dictatorship that controlled every aspect of people's lives, but I dispute the notion that that is still the case. I think China have made some very positive steps recently.

Russia succeeded where no one ever thought it was possible.

I'd hardly call Russia a success! Widespread poverty, massive corruption, and fast-becoming the most immoral country in the world, according to the Catholic church, although that's a fairly 'subjective' judgement.

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
Certainly, the notion of exporting Western Style democracy to a fundamentalist Islamic country, with all the associated 'rights' and 'equalities', would take on a quasi-religous type 'crusade' of Western ideology versus Islamic religous faith.

Which would be wrong of Western society to do, no matter, how self-righteous we might feel on this topic.

But wouldn't you therefore agree that even the imposition of democracy on them would also logically have to be wrong as well. I would say that the "promotion" of democracy has already taken on form of quasi-religious crusade, what with the invasion of two governments ostensibly to "free" the people.

Originally posted by Chill

I don't agree. All people's want to be free. It is a human thing not justa western thing. Islam has held the middle east captive for centuries and the people of the middle east deserve more.

What you seem to fail to take into account is that all peoples want their own vision of freedom, which isn't necessarily the same as your vision of it, and that Islam is just as valid a path for someone to freely choose as your own particular vision of freedom.

For you to insist that they should live for your ideals and by your definition of freedom is actually denying them freedom, not granting it. It may be a more humane (by our perspective) imprisonment - and I won't deny that I'd agree that it would be - but it is most categorically not freedom.

Now, if you wish to restate your case as opposition to fundamentalist Islam, your sweeping generalisations against a religion (so much for religious tolerance in your vision of freedom, eh?) go ot the window for a start, and after that there doesn't seem to be much left, so I'd rather wait to see your response to this before dealing with any of the "supporting" statements you made.

jc

Typedef

Originally posted by bonkey
But wouldn't you therefore agree that even the imposition of democracy on them would also logically have to be wrong as well. I would say that the "promotion" of democracy has already taken on form of quasi-religious crusade, what with the invasion of two governments ostensibly to "free" the people.

Absolutely.

Saddam Hussein, was a tyrant and a dictator, and I always supported, austing him.

What I don't support, nor countenance is exchanging a dictator, for, well, dictation from the West, since, I don't really demark the point, 'god' appointed us, to bring civilisation to the 'savage', for want of a better analogy.

chill

Originally posted by Typedef
Don't you think that is just slightly self righteous?

No. I believe your statements are outrageously insulting and patronising to the people of the Middle East who I believe want what we all want on this earth - to be free to live how they wish to live and to run their affairs the way they wish to live their affairs.

They have a right to those things and the idea that their subjugation for centuries is somehow their choice is a despicable one.

chill

Originally posted by sovtek
"Allies"...who are they?
OHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhh you mean the "coalition".
Sorry, back on topic now.

Your word games and semantics are really impressive....

.

chill

Originally posted by mr_angry
You know, I nearly agreed with you until you said that. That is an incredibly naive statement, and is an insult to every Islamic believer out there. Frankly, I couldn't be bothered trying to argue the point, because with that mindset, something tells me you aren't going to listen to rational debate.

You appear to only be able to cope with debate when it agrees with your outrageous idea that the people of the middle east have chosen to be subjugated for centuries and do not wish to live their lives their own way and manage their affairs their own way - as you do. Perhaps you think they don't have the capability that people in the west do ? now who's virging on racism.... ?

I think this is verging on racism. Just because people believe in living by a strict code of Islam does not make them terrorists.

Your suggestion that extreme islamic mass murderers live according to some kind of strict Islamic faith is preposterous.

I'm not saying they are, but I think a free-market economy in Iraq will be a soft target for corruptors.

I agree. But life's like that. Accepting only perfection is no solution to any issue. To avoid change because it will not be perfect is no answer.

Still leaving the country though [investment income I assume}

Thei is the same argument that socialists put against US investment in Ireland that lead to our continued growth and put us into a position to take advantage of our EU investment. Of course income will leave the country, but that is a fraction of the funds that will generate growth, jobs, infrastructure, education and prosperity.

I think that's a bit close-minded. I agree that China was a brutal dictatorship that controlled every aspect of people's lives, but I dispute the notion that that is still the case. I think China have made some very positive steps recently.

I would suggst to you that this is incredibly naive. Nothing has changed in Chinese people's freedom to run their lives the way they chose to do so. Nothing has changed in Chinese people's freedom to disagree with the ruling cabal. That cabal rules everything in China. I would be interested in your reacrtion if Ireland changed to the Chinese way and whether you would be happy accepting that.

I'd hardly call Russia a success! Widespread poverty, massive corruption, and fast-becoming the most immoral country in the world, according to the Catholic church, although that's a fairly 'subjective' judgement.

Such a condemnation from the Catholic Church would seem like an admirable endorsement considering the moral corruption of that organisation over the last few years. And Russia is hardly what I would call a great place to be. But it is far further down the road of democracy than China and the suggestion that widespread poverty excludes democracy ? and massive corruption excludes democracy ?

mr_angry

I'm not suggesting that at all - as you've already said, Russia is a democracy. What I'm trying to say is that Russia's transition to democracy was hardly the massive success you're making it out to be. Plus, all the Chinese people I know seem perfectly happy with the way their country is progressing, and don't feel repressed by the "brutal regime" you keep referring to.

As for your pro-coalition propaganda - they have hardly delievered some kind of utopian society, have they? Frankly, I'd love to tell you to {**** **** ***** ** ***** **** ******** ****** ** **** ***}, but I'd probably just get banned.

chill

Originally posted by mr_angry
I'm not suggesting that at all - as you've already said, Russia is a democracy. What I'm trying to say is that Russia's transition to democracy was hardly the massive success you're making it out to be.

That's because you seem to apply some kind of utopian measure of success. In my view it has been a massive success all the way. Is it perfect ? no. Is it good enough ? No. But it is immeasurably better than what they had for 80 years before that.

Plus, all the Chinese people I know seem perfectly happy with the way their country is progressing, and don't feel repressed by the "brutal regime" you keep referring to.

I take it you'll be voting for this kind of system at the next election then ?

As for your pro-coalition propaganda - they have hardly delievered some kind of utopian society, have they? Frankly, I'd love to tell you to {**** **** ***** ** ***** **** ******** ****** ** **** ***}, but I'd probably just get banned.

Your antiUS, Saddam appeasing propaganda has to be challenged by someone - to point out the evil of his regime and the better world we live in as a result. No doubt you can claim that 'some' people in Iraq are worse off and try to convince us that Saddam should have been left in power to continue his torture, mass murder and other vicious abuse of his people . No dout this would satisfy some bizarre politically correct view of the world where knocking the US is more important than the lives of millions of people.
For me, a well established disliker of the Bush brat, I count people's lives first.


.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by chill
Your antiUS, Saddam appeasing propaganda has to be challenged by someone - to point out the evil of his regime and the better world we live in as a result. No doubt you can claim that 'some' people in Iraq are worse off and try to convince us that Saddam should have been left in power to continue his torture, mass murder and other vicious abuse of his people . No dout this would satisfy some bizarre politically correct view of the world where knocking the US is more important than the lives of millions of people.

Old arguement. People don't think Saddam should have been left in power, they just don't agree with how and what way the Americans are "changing the regime".
There's motives aren't exactly the highest examples of selfless morality either.

For me, a well established disliker of the Bush brat, I count people's lives first.

Does he though? Take a look here.

mr_angry

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
Old arguement. People don't think Saddam should have been left in power, they just don't agree with how and what way the Americans are "changing the regime".
There's motives aren't exactly the highest examples of selfless morality either.[/URL].

Exactly. I think Saddam should have been dealt with long ago, but not by occupying Iraq, and not by levelling entire city blocks trying to assisinate him with cruise missiles. Considering he's probably still out there, I think he should be found, caught (not killed), and tried for his crimes. And don't even attempt to tell me that its not worth trying to capture him, because he's well armed, and then have the cheek to tell me you care more about people's lives.

Also, out of interest Chill, why do you not like Bush? Seems strange to me, since you blindly accept al of his actions as President, and dismiss any of the reports of the crimes being carried out by the US in Iraq as "simply not happenning". The only difference is that they are being shown by foreign media. That must make them false, eh?

chill

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
Old arguement.

Against an old excuse.

People don't think Saddam should have been left in power, they just don't agree with how and what way the Americans are "changing the regime".

Fact is they marched and protested and lobbied to have Saddam left in power. Their conscience must be very flexible.

There's motives aren't exactly the highest examples of selfless morality either.

Difference being that they never claimed to be acting out of the holier than thou motives.

Does he though? Take a look here.

More of the usual propaganda. Sadly the Iraqis and Al Quida have indeed intentionally murdered their own people as easily as they take any human life.
Thankfuly only a fraction of these innocent lives were caused by the Allies and they pale in to insignificance compared with the numbers murdered by Saddam.

I notice also that no one here cares to recall that over 600,000 bodies of innocent civilians have been found by UN inspectors in mass graves in Iraq since the war. Perhaps that would stretch the conscience of the protestors wanting to appease Saddam.


.

chill

Originally posted by mr_angry
Also, out of interest Chill, why do you not like Bush?

I don't agree with any ultra right wing US leader, especially those that get in to power the way he has; those that push patriotism toward nationalism and those that want to isolate the US from International involvement in unilateral action.

Seems strange to me, since you blindly accept al of his actions as President,

Seems to me that you are one blindly sucking up the lies and moral vacancy of the appeasers of a consistent mass murderer of his own people..

... and dismiss any of the reports of the crimes being carried out by the US in Iraq as "simply not happenning". The only difference is that they are being shown by foreign media. That must make them false, eh?

Your willingness to believe and regurgitate such lies demonstrates to me why we need Leaders to protect the West and take action against evil in the world instead of wringing their hands while enabling mass murderers to continue their dirty work.

.