Full Version: Is this Democracy in Action?
QUOTE
From: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5844150/
With Iraq's national elections just a few months away in January, al-Sistani has positioned himself as a kingmaker, who acts independently of the new Iraqi government and the U.S. military.
Al-Sistani, who commands the loyalty of millions of Shiites and supports a democratic Iraq, is considered a moderate. Nonetheless, his unchecked influence is troublesome.
With Iraq's national elections just a few months away in January, al-Sistani has positioned himself as a kingmaker, who acts independently of the new Iraqi government and the U.S. military.
Al-Sistani, who commands the loyalty of millions of Shiites and supports a democratic Iraq, is considered a moderate. Nonetheless, his unchecked influence is troublesome.
If for some reason the Iraqi people decide they want one of these two clerics (al-Sistani or al-Sadr) for Iraq's leader or for a local leader in Shia controlled areas, is it democracy to allow the Iraqis to elect them?
Given this:
QUOTE
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5217874/site/newsweek/
June 15 - The first survey of Iraqis sponsored by the U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority after the Abu Ghraib prison scandal shows that most say they would feel safer if Coalition forces left immediately, without even waiting for elections scheduled for next year. An overwhelming majority, about 80 percent, also say they have “no confidence” in either the U.S. civilian authorities or Coalition forces.
June 15 - The first survey of Iraqis sponsored by the U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority after the Abu Ghraib prison scandal shows that most say they would feel safer if Coalition forces left immediately, without even waiting for elections scheduled for next year. An overwhelming majority, about 80 percent, also say they have “no confidence” in either the U.S. civilian authorities or Coalition forces.
The second question is: if the Iraqis want one of these two or someone else we don't like for a leader, will we be able to stop them? And if so, how?
While I know this is not answering either of the questions, I feel this is relevant to the general idea of this debate:
Question three: if the Iraqis want one of these two or someone else we don't like for a leader, should we try and interfere? After all, what's democracy if we overthrow their choice.
Question three: if the Iraqis want one of these two or someone else we don't like for a leader, should we try and interfere? After all, what's democracy if we overthrow their choice.
I really hope that al-Sistani's influence continues to grow, if for no other reason than he seems to believe that religion is a spiritual matter that should be separate from politics.
He is that rare thing in modern Middle Eastern politics - a secularist fundamentalist.
So far, his interventions in Iraq have all been for the good of the Iraqi people - generally he has been telling people to stop fighting and get on with living. That has to be a good start.
He's said he doesn't want political office, which is usually a good indication that somebody might be good at holding such office (!). I really think that his leadership could be the touchstone to a largely peaceful and democratic Iraq, in the way that Ghandi was in India.
What we need to be concerned about are the Iraqi equivalents of Nehru and Jinna (al-Sadr and the Kurds?) who might lead to domestic Iraq terror and partition.
He is that rare thing in modern Middle Eastern politics - a secularist fundamentalist.
So far, his interventions in Iraq have all been for the good of the Iraqi people - generally he has been telling people to stop fighting and get on with living. That has to be a good start.
He's said he doesn't want political office, which is usually a good indication that somebody might be good at holding such office (!). I really think that his leadership could be the touchstone to a largely peaceful and democratic Iraq, in the way that Ghandi was in India.
What we need to be concerned about are the Iraqi equivalents of Nehru and Jinna (al-Sadr and the Kurds?) who might lead to domestic Iraq terror and partition.
QUOTE
if the Iraqis want one of these two or someone else we don't like for a leader, should we try and interfere? After all, what's democracy if we overthrow their choice.
I agree here.
If we are truly seeking a democratic state in Iraq that will be an example of freedom and democracy to the other nations of the Middle East that might promote the same in their countries, then how can we interfere without it all looking like a farce to the rest of the Middle East?
The only way we should interfere with this process is the same way we have interfered with this process in other countries. Publicly proclaim our support of the Candidate(s) we most like and allow American citizens to donate to the campaigns of whatever candidates they choose.
Yet, even this level of involvement could be used by others in other nations to suggest that Iraq really is a puppet of the US. Hands off would likely be the best approach.
You either believe in the democratic process or you don't. If you do then you allow it to go in whatever direction the people choose. Even if in the end you feel that the choices made are not the right ones in your eyes, that does not mean they are not the right ones for the Iraqi people.
Our only duty here is to do our best to ensure that the elections are peaceful and that all Iraqis have access to the polls.
QUOTE
if the Iraqis want one of these two or someone else we don't like for a leader, should we try and interfere? After all, what's democracy if we overthrow their choice.
I believe we should follow what the Iraqis want. Our country has a tendency to go into a situation with all good intentions (I hope) only to then attempt to force what the US wants down the throats of those we set out to free from oppression. As far as I am concerned what is the difference?
Yes, the difference in Iraq is that a "butcher" is out of power and his sadistic sons are dead. However if we control the elections we are still in control and have not accomplished the entire mission. That mission being to rid the people of a madman and HELP establish a democratic government.
In the past we in some way have behind the scenes "assured" the person we want in control of a country is in place, then had that same government turn on us. Look at Iran for example, or how about Panama and Noreaga? We helped put him in power, then when he wouldn't follow our rules we went in and grabbed him. How does this help our image in the world?
These are religious leaders...and Sistani already holds the title as Grand Ayatollah.
From what I understand Muqtada (Sadr) has no religious standing..as that which is required by Shia doctrines.
I have also read that allegedly he is not even 30 yrs old but in and around 25..and that because he has no religious standing or authority to interpret the Koran himself he must rely on an Iranian cleric to do so for him...I have even read that he in fact is illiterate and can not even read the Koran.
These guys don't get democratically elected..it is like the Pope..who elects the Pope? Not the people. They serve until they die..and then another leader..one who is in the right high ranking religious position to then lead ..which Muqtada is not..takes over.
I certainly hope the US does not get too involved in this mess. I think the best thing to do is to try and protect Sistani..as he is the recognized and legitimate leader of Iraqi Shiites...and one of the main spiritual leaders for Shia Muslims all over the world. Muqtada is nothing.
From what I understand Muqtada (Sadr) has no religious standing..as that which is required by Shia doctrines.
I have also read that allegedly he is not even 30 yrs old but in and around 25..and that because he has no religious standing or authority to interpret the Koran himself he must rely on an Iranian cleric to do so for him...I have even read that he in fact is illiterate and can not even read the Koran.
These guys don't get democratically elected..it is like the Pope..who elects the Pope? Not the people. They serve until they die..and then another leader..one who is in the right high ranking religious position to then lead ..which Muqtada is not..takes over.
I certainly hope the US does not get too involved in this mess. I think the best thing to do is to try and protect Sistani..as he is the recognized and legitimate leader of Iraqi Shiites...and one of the main spiritual leaders for Shia Muslims all over the world. Muqtada is nothing.
QUOTE
If for some reason the Iraqi people decide they want one of these two clerics (al-Sistani or al-Sadr) for Iraq's leader or for a local leader in Shia controlled areas, is it democracy to allow the Iraqis to elect them?
Yes, we want them to make their own choice, but if the wrong guy gets in, I could see the interim government making up accusations to retain power. We wouldn't have to worry as much if Sistani gets in. Julian is dead-on, Sistani is our best bet given his somewhat moderate views. The Council on Foreign Relations had this interesting tidbit about what a possible Sistani government would look like.
QUOTE
Some experts say Sistani’s religious philosophy favors creation of an Islamic state that would seem moderate compared with neighboring Iran. “Sistani is not a [Ruhollah] Khomeini” [the spiritual leader of the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran], Nakash says. Some U.S. Iraq experts believe Sistani could support an Islamic state that is compatible with elections, freedom of religion, and other civil liberties—a government that is more religious than Turkey’s, but more inclusive than Iran’s. Others are less sure.
CFR
I'd like to know-if a leading Shiite figure is elected, will the Kurds and Sunnis go along with it?
QUOTE
I'd like to know-if a leading Shiite figure is elected, will the Kurds and Sunnis go along with it?
I think this points up the basic fault in expecting Iraq to become a democracy soon. In a country that is tribally and ethnically divided, where people identify themselves as Sunni, Shia & Kurd first and Iraqi second, political "parties" will form around those sects rather than around ideologies. In this scenario, the most populace tribe will dominate government and the others will resent their lack of power probably leading to failure of the system or even civil war.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.