Why democracy is wrong for Iraq
Yup. Provocative title; one I'm sure that got both Redneck's and Gus's attention. But I'll tell you right now that you think you may know what I'm going to say, but you don't. I can almost hear the collective gasp and sphincters tightening as I write: "What? What do you mean?" "What have we been doing all this time in Iraq then?"
First let me begin by saying that, despite prevailing wisdom, including some posted here, I believe that we are winning the war in Iraq, and the War on Terror. Although the old news reporting adage "If it bleeds, it leads" still remains true to this day, what hasn't been emphasized is the full scope of the changes that have occurred during the last four years; changes which would not have occurred with either Al Gore or John Kerry as President, and quite frankly, probably not with John McCain or some other notable Republicans, either.
Let's be objective about this: For the first time in 5,000 years, women were lined up to vote in Afghanistan, the Taliban are gone, Saddam is in US custody awaiting trial. US troops no longer are on Saudi "holy" soil, and lawmakers are beginning to lean with increasing weight on our autocratic friends, even as we deepen our relationship with other major oil producers like Russia. In addition, major (and long needed) troop redeployments are occurring among the vanquished of a 50 and 60 year old war, respectively. And although some quarters still refer to Bin Laden as a cultural icon, the only "World Jihad Tour" he's doing is in a burqua dressed as a woman. There aren't too many "cultural icons" that can't show their face in public without risk of getting it blown off. Maybe Michael Moore.
Libya has
voluntarily given up a multi billion dollar WMD program, two emerging superpowers (India and Russia) share our concern and feel our pain about the emerging threat and increasing power of Islamic extremists, giving us common ground and increasing support on the world stage, despite concern about estrangement from people like the Chiraq Government. We have an incoming Secretary of State, one of whose stated goals is to deepen ties and understanding with India, a long overdue measure. Unelected Arab "leaders", leaders who sweettalk us, and then excoriate us; accusing us of the some of the most horrible crimes in their
state controlled media, are increasing their Pepcid over the US's increasing estrangement. The Palestinians, when free elections and "statehood" fail, will also show the "poverty/Israel caused our plight" argument for the lie that it is. Iraqis, free as they never have been, go to the polls just days from now.
And of course, Generalissimo Francisco Franco and Yasser Arafat are
still dead. :)
So why the downer lead line, JM? I thought we
wanted democracy for Iraq.....for the Middle East, too. Don't we want them to have what we have?
Right. And Wrong.
There is a popular misconception these days that we live in a democracy. We don't. We live in a
Republic. And in that difference lies success or failure for both Iraq, the War on Terror and the United States. Nowhere in the Constitution or the Declaration will you find the word "Democracy". We do not say, "and to the Democracy for which it stands" or sing "The Battle Hymn of the Democracy". In fact, John Adams himself (among others) stated:
"Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide. "
Why? Why would he say this? The Founders understood that nations should be ruled by the rule of law as governed by God, and not by men. That doesn't imply that it wanted a state religion, but rather that the laws as established should reflect the fact that we have rights that are antecedent to written law, and that as such, government cannot provide them, and more importantly,
cannot take them away. They understood that because of the fallen state of man, he would inevitably vote himself into slavery and tyranny if provided the tools. Democracy destroys freedom. As Plato himself noted, while referring to the destruction of Athens,
"Democracy.....falls into despotism."
Democracies don't work because it is only a temporary state that only works until the "will of the people" realizes that it can vote itself largesse from the public treasury. In a democracy, the majority can pretty much do whatever it wants. They can change laws, they can decide to oppress and exploit certain people. The ultimate authority is the will of the people – no matter how misguided and shortsighted it might be. In a republic, the rule is by law. There are limitations explicitly placed on what government can and cannot do – no matter how popular the decisions might be. But in a democracy, once the people realize that goodies can be voted out of the treasury, the majority start voting for the people that promise them the most. We see that even now, even with President Bush. And this behavior from politicians, and expectation from citizens is increasing. This behavior is then followed by a slow, downward spiral as the economy slowly collapses from increased taxation and spending. And that pattern is always followed by a dictatorship. Always. ALWAYS.
Always.
So the Founders, who understood this, created a republic – one with checks and balances built in, with a Constitution, with a federal government of limited power and scope, a system in which the individual's unalienable rights were recognized and protected, a representative form of government, not one based on direct vote of the populace. And this used to be understood. Look at the definition of a republic in the 1928 US army officer training manual:
"REPUBLIC: Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard for consequences. A great number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress."
Which brings us to Iraq. The Founders, I'm sure, would have looked with concern at the idea of trying to establish a republic among those who a religion as authoritarian as those whom they referred to as "Mohammedans". They understood that, as John Adams again puts it,
"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people." Islam, as it has been historically understood, is almost incompatible with individual liberty, on which a republic thrives. That is the question in Iraq. And that is what needs to be commonly understood before we establish unrealistic expectations. While not impossible, establishing a Republican-style goverment in Iraq will be alien to them, and very unlike what the birth of this country was; indeed, it has high potential to fall into despotism if not applied properly.
Redneck Texan has expressed his views about his "final solution" to "The Islamic problem" What should be pointed out in his argument is not that he is wrong, because he isn't...not yet. We have not yet reached the point where the rest of the world feels that it needs to respond in kind to the kind of atrocities that we have already seen. It may. Or it may be that moderate Muslims may retake control of their religion. However, it should be pointed out that although there were plenty of Japanese in WWII that opposed the Imperial Military, there were apparently not enough to keep out Jimmy Doolittle with all of Hell following soon after. The advantage that the Iraqis (and indeed, the Iranians and other) have that the Japanese didn't is an unprecedented level of access to ideas which may yet allow them to avoid terrible bloodshed or even subtotal destruction. The Federalist Papers can be downloaded off of the Internet. Iraqis can actually talk to free people elsewhere in the world. they can see the results of freedom and liberty on TV. Some may be able to incorporate that into their faith, or vice versa. Or perhaps it isn't compatible at all.
And Iraq is the best place to start. I believe this can be done, having said all of this. The suicide bombs and explosions that go off daily in Iraq are not proof that Americans are losing the Sunni Triangle, but rather that thousands of secular and religious fascists are desperate not to lose their entire Middle East.
But we need to be alert and careful, with a true understanding of what democracy is, what a republic is, who
we are, and what we're doing.
A Constitution does not a Republic make.
Posted By: Johnnymozart
