Democracy Development in Iraq - Essay Example

Democracy in Iraq 2008 Democracy in Iraq Introduction Democracy has been the core topic in discussions about Iraq from the months before the war in the country. The dominant view of the US politicians was clearly expressed in President George W. Bush’s statement “All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected” (Bush, 2003). In the eyes of numerous proponents of spreading democracy on the Iraqi soil Iraq is supposed to become an example to follow (a “City on the Hill”) for the rest of Arab states in the Middle East and other regions of the world (Fallows, 2002). However, there is also considerable number of those politicians and scholars whom believe the task of achieving democracy might be too difficult or even impossible for Iraq. Experts list a number of factors that prevent Iraq from becoming a democratic country, at least in the short-term. For example, Marine General Anthony Zinni, who was the Head of U.S. Central Command from 1997 to 2000 made the following statement on the probability of establishing democracy in Iraq: “If we think there is a fast solution to changing the governance of Iraq, then we don’t understand history, the nature of the country, the divisions, or the underneath suppressed passions that could rise up. God help us if we think this transition will occur easily. The attempts I’ve seen to install democracy in short periods of time where there is no history and no roots have failed. Take it back to Somalia (Zinni, 2002 cited in Dodge, 2003, p.157). This opinion of the person who was directly involved in the process of democratization of Iraq are supported by many scholars and political experts. Adam Garfinkle, a famous Middle East political expert, also holds the opinion that establishing democracy in the country is an immensely difficult task, while any attempt to fulfill it will not only result in failure but will also lead to the growth of anti-American spirit in the Arab world (Garfinkle, 2003). Main Body The pessimism that currently exists in relation to the possibility of establishing democracy in Iraq relies on the assumption that the country does not have any favorable conditions for democratic transformation. This means that not only social and economic prerequisites such as numerous middle class, serious economic opportunities, good system of education and other are not there but also that the traditional political culture contradicts the democratic norms and values. As is well known, “democracy” is taken from а Greek word which means government of the people, by the people and for the people: “demos” means people, and “cratos” means government. This is the meaning of the word (the nominal definition), but the concept to which the word corresponds (the real definition) has developed through centuries (De Torre, 1997). Therefore, modern scientists such as Robert Dahl, Anthony Arblaster, Benjamin Barber, Andrew Heywood and many others have their own often varying views on modern democracy. There are several democratic models described in works of these authors. According to Professor Robert Dahl, one of the most prominent democratic theorists of nowadays, modern democracy has four historical sources: the direct democracy in ancient Greece, the republicanism of Roman and Italian city-states in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, the theory and practice of representative government, and the idea of political equality (Dahl, 1989). Political ideals and aims of the classical Athenian democracy were expressed by the outstanding Greek philosopher Aristotle in The Politics dated between 335 and 323 BC. Aristotle identifies liberty as one of the founding principles of the classical democratic constitution. The philosopher argues that liberty has two major aspects, namely: 1) ruling and being ruled in turn; 2) living as one chooses (Aristotle, 1984) So we can say that, liberty and equality are inseparable linked. In fact, the first element of liberty, namely ruling and being ruled in turn is based on a fundamental conception of equality, which Aristotle labels as "numerical equality" (as opposed to "equality based on merit"). The ideals of Athenian democracy - equality among citizens, liberty, and respect for the law and justice - have had great influence in the Western political thought and are present in some or other form in every democratic model (Held, 1996). Evidently, democracy requires a high level of tolerance and moderation, an established social order and universal respect to the rule law. These prerequisites are practically absent in Iraq with its traditional Islamic culture. Furthermore, Iraq is surrounded by neighbors that have political structures and authoritarian forms of government which are absolutely alien to democracy. Religious and ethnic division of the country, long history of tyranny, several major military conflicts that occurred on Iraqi territory, and high degree of dependence on oil as the only source of income make Iraq one of the most unfavorable places for the spread of democratic values: “There are poorer countries in the world, to be sure (and surprisingly, many of these, like Mali, are democracies). But it would be difficult to find a worse combination of structural factors for the emergence of democracy” (Diamond, 2006, p.3). Generally, experts identify five major interrelated problems that stand on the way of establishing democracy in Iraq. Firstly, since democracy has never been practiced in the whole region, not only in Iraq, the country has several non-democratic alternatives that might be worse than democracy but are historically more acceptable for Iraqi people and do have the potential to provide the country with stability. The essence of this objection is perfectly summarized by Charles Tripp’s statement: “...those who are seeking to develop a new narrative for the history of Iraq must recognise the powerful legacies at work in the country if they do not want to succumb to their logic” (Tripp, 2000, p. 280). Secondly, serious fragmentation of Iraqi society represents a huge obstacle for democratization of the country. Religious and ethnic identity of Iraqi people is one of the key issues in the debate whether it is possible to establish and effectively maintain democratic system in Iraq. The nature of Islam barely facilitates proliferation of democratic values while “the role of the Islamic religious infrastructure in shaping the values of people in the region (non-Muslim as well as Muslim) has clearly been crucial since classical times” (Choueiri, 2005, p. 494). The very first democratic elections in the country clearly demonstrated the strong ethnic divide: in fact, the elections became an identity referendum. Approximately 90 percent of Kurdistan gave their votes for the Kurdistan Coalition list; almost 75 percent of Shiites voted for the United Iraqi Alliance; 90 percent of Sunnis voted for one of the two main Sunni lists. As a result, 100 percent of seats in three provinces populated by Kurds were won by Kurdish parties, 86 percent of seats in nine Iraqi provinces populated by Shiites went to Shiite parties, while Sunni receive 88 percent of seats in two provinces populated by Sunnites (Byman & Pollack, 2003). As a result, the United Iraqi Alliance became the dominant political power in Iraq though it represents only one religious group. The importance of religious identification of political parties was brightly illustrated by the result of the Iraqi List which included several major non-sectarian political players. Despite very smart campaign based on reasonable criticism of the transitional government and substantial financial resources, the Iraqi List won only 8 percent of the vote. The rest of seats in Iraq’s National Assembly are now occupied by representatives of political parties that emphasize their religious or ethnic identity (Byman & Pollack, 2003). Thus, the prevalence of Shiite population in the country (approximately 60 percent) enabled the Shiite religious parties emerge as the dominant force on the national level. Evidently, such results of democratic elections could hardly suit the Sunni minority: the dissatisfaction with the new form of political structure became a logical outcome of this. The paradox is apparent: even despite the availability of democratic institutions and free elections, the actual outcome is establishing a tyranny of the Shiite majority over the rest ethnic and religious groups. Thirdly, the transition to democratic political system in the country would be too hazardous and the elected government will lack power to effectively rule the whole country. This, in its turn, will lead to huge difficulties in establishing effective democratic institutions in different regions of Iraq. In absence of such institutions, numerous civil conflicts between rival communities will become inevitable. Fourthly, the process of establishing democracy in Iraq requires substantial resources and will inevitably take very long time. However, the United States that plays the key role in the democratization attempts will not have sufficient patience to give democracy a chance to mature (Byman & Pollack, 2003). Besides, the history of international relations with Iraq suggests that the attitude of Iraqi people towards the US might be too unfavorable. Since the Gulf War in the beginning of 1990’s, the conflicts with Iraq – such as the bombing campaign of 1998 – have become a traditional political stripe of the White House. After the September 11 the United States again labeled Iraq as a grave threat to the world. However, this was only the prelude to the storm – the Bush Administration launched a new military campaign in the beginning of 2003. Furthermore, when the war was still at the climax, the President had already been caught on a lie obviously intended to obtain stronger international support for the invasion. Thus on September 2, 2002, at Camp David, George Bush referred to the report issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). President cited what in his account was the key point of that document: “…a report came out of the Atomic – the IAEA – that they were six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon. I dont know what more evidence [on behalf of the American invasion] we need” (Washington Post, 2002) In reality, the report stated directly opposite: “Based on all credible information to date, the IAEA has found no indication of Iraq having achieved its program goal of producing nuclear weapons or of Iraq having retained a physical capability for the production of weapon-useable nuclear material or having clandestinely obtained such material” (Washington Post, 2002). The UN inspectors persistently searched for an evidence of the claims made by the US military that Iraq is capable of building long-range missiles. However, the tips allegedly obtained by the CIA at the expense of its officer’s lives turned fake upon closer examination, and “…so frustrated have the inspectors become that one source has referred to the U.S. intelligence theyve been getting as "garbage after garbage after garbage” (CBS News, 2003). Clearly, such behavior of the United States could not but provoke the feeling of insult in Iraqi people and eventually complicate the task of democratization for the US which is the major player in the process. And finally, Iraq is simply not psychologically ready for the democratic system; particularly people are not ready to mobilize their desire to live in the democratic society. As Chantal Mouffe, one of the most competent political philosophers of the present, believes, “democracy is never going to be completely realized, but it is something which will always need to be a project which we are going to fight for…be aware that there is no final goal – democracy is a process which we are continually working towards. So we are clearly facing a difficulty in terms of the way passion can be mobilized.” (Žižek, 2005, p.97). Conclusion Even with all the negative factors that prevent Iraq from becoming a democracy, it is possible to believe that the country has the chances to gradually develop a democratic political system. However, the transition period will inevitably be painful and turbulent, and any model of democracy that will emerge during the initial phases of the process will not be fully democratic incorporating the features traditional for Iraqi culture, religion and history. On the other hand, any political structure that has at least the main features of democracy has the potential to resolve the most vital problem of establishing at least some order in Iraq – the task the current political structure largely fails to fulfill. References Aristotle 1984, The Politics, The University of Chicago Press. Bush, G. W., 2003, Remarks before the American Enterprise Institute, February 27, retrieved August 3, 2008 from www.foreignpolicy.org (electronic version). Byman, D. L., & Pollack, K. M. (2003), “Democracy in Iraq?”, The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 119–136. “Citing Non-Existing Report”, Washington Post, October 22, 2002 Choueiri, Y. M. 2005, A Companion to the History of the Middle East, Blackwell Publishing Ltd. p 494 Dahl, R. A. 1989, Democracy and Its Critiques, Yale University Press. Diamond, L. 2006, “Can Iraq Become a Democracy? Can Iraq Avoid Civil War?”, Paper for the International Studies Association Meeting, retrieved August 3, 2008 from http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/9/8/3/9/pages98396/p98396-1.php Dodge, T. 2003, Inventing Iraq: The failure of Nation Building and a History Denied, C. Hurst & Co. Publishers Ltd. Fallows, J. 2002, “The Fifty-First State?”, Atlantic, November, pp. 53–64. “Inspectors Call U.S. Tips Garbage”, CBS News, February 20, 2003 Garfinkle, A. 2003, “The New Missionaries,” Prospect April, pp. 22–24. Held, D. 1996, Models of Democracy, Second Edition, Stanford University Press. Tripp, C. 2000, A History of Iraq, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Žižek, S., 2005, Iraq: The Borrowed Kettle, Surrey: Verso. Read More