The sacbee ran an article from the Post today
"Religious leaders ahead in Iraq poll

It highlights the widespread public support in Iraq for what we would call hardliner religious candidates.

I'm sure our government was trying to pull off exactly what we did in afghanistan:
1) Invade
2) Overthrow the current government
3) Install an interim government
4) Hope members of the interim government get carried over in national elections (Karzi's election)
...and that's not a bad plan.

But...the polls cited in the article indicate that the majority of the parliament members elected to draft the new constitution are going to be religous leaders. Sadr among them.

My question to you: what, if any, actions should the US government take in Iraq if the new Iraqi constitution establishes a theocracy or religious dictatorship?

(I've just read the article on the globe's website, it's not the whole thing. The bee cites that 46% of Iraqis want sadr put in the assembly to draft the new constitution. That''s opposed to 15% wanting Chalabi!!!)

first of all i dont think they would want to go with that form of government since it has really worked in the past...

Well, I think Iraq is unlikely to elect a dictator - that doesn't mean that one can't arise, but generally external factors contribute to this. Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse Tsung etc got into power with the general support of the populace, but were able to use external factors to ensure that their power increased and became absolute.

These external factors have generally been war or extreme economic collapse. If Iraq can avoid these, then I think democracy would survive.

However, theocratic governments have been elected (or accepted by the general populace) before, as in Iran (and to a lesser extent Saudi Arabia) - and prospered - albeit in Iran or Saudi Arabias's case this is due to its vast fuel reservoirs.

A theocratic government itself is not a problem...Islam and the USA are not actually fundamentally opposed....

The actions that the US - and indeed the rest of the world should take - would be to
a.) respect the wishes of the Iraqi people and
B.) ensure that whatever is elected remains a democracy

My question to you: what, if any, actions should the US government take in Iraq if the new Iraqi constitution establishes a theocracy or religious dictatorship?


The new Iraqi constitution cannot establish a theocracy or religious dictatorship because of laws allready in place via Bremer. If they attempt to change those laws they will have to go through the Democratic process in which the laws will have to be changed, they cannot simply throw them out. If another dictatorship is established it is because they chose it - through the Democratic process which is HIGHLY unlikely no matter who is elected. No majority supports a dictatorship. In fact the Grand Ayatollah who holds the majority of the populations support advocates a Democracy, not a Dictatorship.

I have a question... why do you equate theocracy with dictatorship, or at the very least draw a connection between the two. All sorts of democracies have some sort of formal religious function in the state mechanism.

I think you are sidestepping the questions though. What if the Iraqi's DO use the democratic process to establish a government that the U.S. would find unpalatable?

My question to you: what, if any, actions should the US government take in Iraq if the new Iraqi constitution establishes a theocracy or religious dictatorship?

First, Iraqi elections will not involve all parts of Iraq. At least 3 provinces will be "problematic". These provinces contain the bulk of the Sunni populace; meaning that the Sunni will not be fairly represented in the government. Second, it is inevitable that a Shi'a majority government will be elected. Because many Sunnis will have had their voting disenfranchised, because the Shi'a will be in power and because the insurgency will still be ongoing, a significant minority of Sunnis will reject the balance of power. This will lead to civil war. Though, it is arguable that civil war is occurring right now in Iraq.

The Kurds will share power at first but will continue their demands for a more autonomous region. The weak Iraqi government dealing with the Sunni rejection will have to accede to the Kurds wishes. This will be unacceptable to the Turks who will begin fortifying their borders. Turkish Kurds will use the Kurdish Iraqi region as a base of operations for insurgent campaigns against the Turks. The Turks will respond by crossing the border in a counter-insurgency effort. Iraq will then have two wars: Sunni vs. Shi'a and Kurd vs. Turk.

But, wait it gets better. The US will have a choice. If it chooses to contain the Iraqi conflagration, it will have to vastly increase its ground troops by likely a factor of 3. This means either pulling troops out of strategically important regions in the world or by instituting a draft. If the US chooses to pull out, then the Iraqi conflagration will continue until it either burns out or ignites neighboring countries into the conflict.

I believe that no matter what government is elected in Iraq, the outcome is bad.

This is one of the questions for national sovereignty. Whose to say that a people wouldn't choose an authoritative system of government? There was a time when democracy was a dirty word that was associated with mob rule.

Self-determination of a people includes the choice to pick another form of government. Democracies that include large parties that opt for non-democratic forms of government (dictatorship, theocracy, fascism, communism, anarchism) have a hard time staying as a democracy. We shouldn't be laying our credibility on the line by promising to provide a stable democracy in Iraq.

The healthy democracies I have studied have had large stable middle classes. Iraq seems to still be a developing nation and the economic setbacks of the past fifteen years can't have helped. Our present economic policies in Iraq don't seem to be replacing the state run economy with full employment.

Theocracies occur when the religious leaders also act as the government. They are generally incompatible with democracy, as any opposition is not simply disagreeing with the policies of the government, but also the view of the established religious hierarchy and as such border on the heretical.

Simply put, people can vote IN a theocracy, but can rarely ever vote one OUT...

Whilst a country can have an official religion and in many cases, the Head of State can also be the formal head of that religion - generally democratic countries try and keep religion and government seperate.

Whilst it is perfectly possible to vote in a government that could use Islam as the basis for its policies, that would not be a theocracy. In a theocracy, religious leaders, rather than the people choose the government.

what, if any, actions should the US government take in Iraq if the new Iraqi constitution establishes a theocracy or religious dictatorship?

This, I think, is the real test of America's intentions in Iraq.

If the elections are free and fair, and the people of Iraq choose a theocratic government that perhaps evolves into a religious dictatorship, outside observers that have a genuine wish to see the Iraqi people shape their own future pretty much have to smile sweetly and wish them well, no matter what their private thoughts might be.

That doesn't preclude taking such a new government to task over what it does once it gets into office, if such things are deemed to be unjust, cruel, anti-democratic, or just plain against the interests of the plaintiff country. But it does mean accepting the legitimacy of the new government in the short term, unless & until it's actions demonstrate it's illegitimacy.

The worst possible thing that America, or any other coalition member state, could do in such an event would be to immediately declare the election void, refuse to remove their troops, attempt to remove the elected government and postpone further elections.

Now, I don't disagree with the idea of a democratic country suspending democracy to avoid a prospective government whose platform would effectviely abolish democracy. For example, the Algerian military coup in the early 90s that prevented extremist Islamists from taking power was, in the long run, probably a good thing, though, in themselves military coups are never a good thing.

But Iraq is a in distinctly different position. It would not be the Iraqis themselves that deposed an incoming extremist government - more importantly, it would not LOOK like it was the Iraqis themselves, because (realistically) Western troops will not be leaving the day after polling day next January

We need to be scrupulously careful not to try to influence the outcome of the elections in Iraq, and to try to work with whoever wins as best we can. Any other way leads to (well-founded) accusations of hypocrisy, imperialism, anti-Moslem ideas, and so on.

As long as the election is deemed fair I do not believe the US military will intervene. Bush has allready publicly stated this, and we shouldnt. If that is what they want that is what they will get.

Just to show you how difficult it would be for them to adopt this type of government, take a look at the laws allready in place.

http://www.iraqigovernment.org/test/law_tal.htm