Reply
Thu 15 Apr, 2004 10:48 pm
This information is interesting because Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum. He is one of the most radical Neo-Cons and a controversial Bush appointee. Pipes now claims democracy won't work in Iraq and that the Bush Administration needs to install another dictator! Pipes is connected and may be speaking for Cheney and Rumsfeld.---BBB
History shows Islam, democracy unlikely to mix in Iraq
April 14, 2004 - Chicago Sun Times
BY DANIEL PIPES
The current insurrection in Iraq was discernible a year ago, as I already noted in April 2003: ''Thousands of Iraqi Shiites chanted 'No to America, No to Saddam, Yes to Islam' a few days ago, during pilgrimage rites in the holy city of Karbala. Increasing numbers of Iraqis appear to agree with these sentiments. They have ominous implications for the coalition forces.''
The recent wave of violence makes those implications fully apparent.
Two factors in particular made me expect Iraqi resistance. First, the quick war of 2003 focused on overturning a hated tyrant so that, when it was over, Iraqis felt liberated, not defeated. Accordingly, the common assumption that Iraq resembled the Germany and Japan of 1945 was wrong. Those two countries had been destroyed through years of all-out carnage, leading them to acquiesce to the postwar overhaul of their societies and cultures. Iraq, in contrast, emerged almost without damage from brief hostilities, and Iraqis do not feel they must accept guidance from the occupation forces. Rather, they immediately showed a determination to shape their country's future.
Second, as a predominantly Muslim people, Iraqis share in the powerful Muslim reluctance to being ruled by non-Muslims. This reluctance results from the very nature of Islam, the most public and political of religions.
To live a fully Muslim life requires living in accord with the many laws of Islam, called the sharia. The sharia includes difficult-to-implement precepts pertaining to taxation, the judicial system and warfare. Its complete implementation can occur only when the ruler himself is a pious Muslim (although an impious Muslim is much preferable to a non-Muslim). For Muslims, rule by non-Muslims is an abomination, a blasphemous inversion of God's dispensation.
This explains why one finds a consistently strong resistance to rule by non-Muslims through 14 centuries of Muslim history. Europeans recognized this resistance, and in their post-Crusades global expansion stayed largely away from majority-Muslim territories, knowing these would awesomely resist their control.
The pattern is striking: For more than four centuries, 1400-1830, Europeans expanded around the world, trading, ruling and settling -- but distinctly in places where Muslims were not, such as the Western Hemisphere, sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia and Australia. In a clear pattern of avoidance, the imperial powers (Britain, France, Holland and Russia especially) took control of faraway territories, while carefully avoiding their Muslim neighbors in North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia.
Only in 1830 did a European power (France) find the confidence frontally to confront a Muslim state (Algeria). Even then, the French needed 17 years just to control the coastal region.
As European rulers conquered Muslim lands, they found they could not crush the Islamic religion, nor win the population over culturally, nor stamp out political resistance. However suppressed, some embers of resistance remained; these often sparked a flame of anti-imperialism that finally drove the Europeans out. In Algeria, for example, a successful eight-year effort, 1954-62, expelled the French colonial authority.
Nor was the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq the first Western undertaking to unburden Muslims of tyrannical rule. Already in 1798, Napoleon Bonaparte appeared in Egypt with an army and declared himself a friend of Islam who had come to relieve the oppressed Egyptians of their Mamluk rulers. His successor as commander in Egypt, J.F. Menou, actually converted to Islam. But these efforts to win Egyptian goodwill failed, as Egyptians rejected the invaders' proclaimed good intentions and remained hostile to French rule.
The European-run ''mandates'' set up in the Middle East after World War I included similar lofty intentions and also found few Muslim takers.
This history suggests that the coalition's grand aspirations for Iraq will not succeed. However constructive its intentions to build democracy, the coalition cannot win the confidence of Muslim Iraq nor win acceptance as its overlord. Even spending $18 billion in one year on economic development does not improve matters.
I therefore counsel the occupying forces quickly to leave Iraqi cities and then, when feasible, to leave Iraq as a whole. They should seek out what I have been calling for since a year ago: a democratically minded Iraqi strongman, someone who will work with the coalition forces, provide decent government, and move eventually toward a more open political system.
This sounds slow, dull and unsatisfactory. But at least it will work -- in contrast to the ambitious but failing current project.
Pipes is a piece of shite! there is nothing worng with that man that a sledgehammer would not cure!
No democracy on the planet had been a democracy before it became one. And if any country has been able to shake off totalitarianism and become a more free society without heavy investment in blood and treasure, I can't think of any.
If the white hot cauldrons of places like Indonesia and Turkey can adopt democracy, if an imperialistic Japan or a long-beseiged Russia can move from dictatorships and make democracy work, it can work anywhere that the people have the will to make it work.
5 years
I actually hope that Iraq does become an actual Democracy. Next Afghanistan, Kuwait, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and all those stans, ya know- Uzbek, Kurdi, etc
Maybe in 20 years China will be a Democracy, as well.
I am not kidding.
Foxfyre wrote:No democracy on the planet had been a democracy before it became one. And if any country has been able to shake off totalitarianism and become a more free society without heavy investment in blood and treasure, I can't think of any.
If the white hot cauldrons of places like Indonesia and Turkey can adopt democracy, if an imperialistic Japan or a long-beseiged Russia can move from dictatorships and make democracy work, it can work anywhere that the people have the will to make it work.
have to correct you on Japan and Russie.
Japan becaem a democracy in the 19th century, with the move of the Meiji government to moderniz and westernize. Even during the Showa period the Diet was still elected.
As for Russia, there are those who would argue that it has yet to become a true democracy (I'm sort of one of them).
In 1890 the Imperial Diet was established, making Japan the first country in Asia to introduce parliamentary politics. The Diet is the sole legislative organ of the state and the highest organ of power. It is vested with such powers as initiating constitutional revisions, deciding on the budget, approving treaties and designating a prime minister.
The upper house, or the House of Peers, of the Imperial Diet was made up of representatives of the privileged class, especially the peerage and the Japan remained an absolute monarch, with sovereignty in the hands of the emperor. It was only in November 1946, when the present Constitution was promulgated, that sovereignty was given to the people and a democratic system government was adopted. Now the emperor is the symbol of the state and the Diet is the supreme organ of state power.
(I borrowed this and it isn't original with me but speaks to the issue quite nicely.)
Foxfyre wrote:In 1890 the Imperial Diet was established, making Japan the first country in Asia to introduce parliamentary politics. The Diet is the sole legislative organ of the state and the highest organ of power. It is vested with such powers as initiating constitutional revisions, deciding on the budget, approving treaties and designating a prime minister.
The upper house, or the House of Peers, of the Imperial Diet was made up of representatives of the privileged class, especially the peerage and the Japan remained an absolute monarch, with sovereignty in the hands of the emperor. It was only in November 1946, when the present Constitution was promulgated, that sovereignty was given to the people and a democratic system government was adopted. Now the emperor is the symbol of the state and the Diet is the supreme organ of state power.
(I borrowed this and it isn't original with me but speaks to the issue quite nicely.)
I hate to keep flogging a dead horse, but.....
You might want to read Kenneth Pyle or James McClain, instead of the source you seem to embarrased to list. McClain's recent work even discusses the different political parties present in Japan in the later 19th and early 20th centuries, and the sometimes bitter fights between the Emperor and the Diet. He also discusses the very important role played by non-noble industrialists and the emergent labouring classes in the
elections of the early twentieth century in Japan. So while your source indeed "speaks," it seems not to say much. Is it an online encyclopedia, perhaps? That would be the best explanation of why it is so brief as to be misleading.
Since hobitbob so diplomatically suggested I was 'ashamed to list my source', I took the time to find out where I had cross referenced it in my notes. And here it the link I took it from some weeks ago during another discussion on democracy in general:
http://www.asianinfo.org/asianinfo/japan/pro-politics.htm
Other pertinent links:
http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/bureaus/eap/factsheets/fs-japan_profile_970731.html
http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2126.html
(doesn't really deal with the issue but does show how long Japan was occupied after their surrender to allied forces in 1945.)
http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2130.html
http://reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/M/MeijiEmp.html
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/1889con.html
Is this enough or do you guys want more?
I think it demonstrates how relying on the intrernet tends to lead one to believing that they posses a more complete picture of events than they actually do.
the "Asia Guide" site is pretty much inadequate as anything other than a brief overview, as I mentioned above. None of the sources you have listed are really adequate for more than a superficial understanding of Japan, and mayeven be misleading of one is looking for information to support one's biases, as you seem to have done.
The last site is a very useful translation of a primary source doicument, but as Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln proved in the 1980s, when amateurs play with such documents, they tend to draw the most interestingly odd conclusions!
This might be a good time for you to accept correction and move on.
In 1776, in the American Declaration if Independence, Thomas Jefferson stated an opinion that all human beings are entitled to a government that derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, and that this is the common birthright of all human beings. Now this is separate from the question of whether it is easy to achieve.
I do not believe that we should abandon the Iraqis to be ruled by whatever faction is strongest, and to return to a system of government in which even peaceful dissent is ruthlessly stamped out, but should make the best effort we can to leave them with a stable constitutional democracy. The goal of giving people a democratic government of laws and not men is an extremely worthwhile goal, and I believe that we should try very hard to acheieve it. We might fail, but I think we ought to try.
hobitbob, I was not attempting to give a complete history of Japan. I was making a point that they were an imperialistic monarchy until they adopted their current constitution in 1947. Yes, they had the Diet and parliamentary procedures prior to that time, but the Emperor remained the final authority until 1947 so you could not classify Japan as a democracy until 1947. Now can we please drop it and focus on the intent of this thread?
Brandon I agree wholeheartedly with your post. There are some so blind to reality, however, that they object to Iraq becoming a democratic nation because we didn't go to Kuwait or Saudi Arabia or North Korea or some other country first. I think compassion only applies to some if it is their idea and they can be in control.
Foxfyre wrote:hobitbob, I was not attempting to give a complete history of Japan. I was making a point that they were an imperialistic monarchy until they adopted their current constitution in 1947. Yes, they had the Diet and parliamentary procedures prior to that time, but the Emperor remained the final authority until 1947 so you could not classify Japan as a democracy until 1947. Now can we please drop it and focus on the intent of this thread?
Well, actually, he did not. His authority was often that of a figurehead in the early twentieth century. The prime minister and his party usually held the real power. Perhaps you should avoid making analogies using examples that are false?
Foxfyre wrote:Brandon I agree wholeheartedly with your post. There are some so blind to reality, however, that they object to Iraq becoming a democratic nation because we didn't go to Kuwait or Saudi Arabia or North Korea or some other country first. I think compassion only applies to some if it is their idea and they can be in control.
Again, what makes you think that "we' have any intention of allowing democracy to occur in Iraq? From many of your posts, I seriously question whether you even undestand what democracy is.
hobitbob wrote:Foxfyre wrote:Brandon I agree wholeheartedly with your post. There are some so blind to reality, however, that they object to Iraq becoming a democratic nation because we didn't go to Kuwait or Saudi Arabia or North Korea or some other country first. I think compassion only applies to some if it is their idea and they can be in control.
Again, what makes you think that "we' have any intention of allowing democracy to occur in Iraq? From many of your posts, I seriously question whether you even undestand what democracy is.
I'd like to answer this. I was stating what I think a good person ought to do. I was advocating what I believe to be the most ethical policy.
hobitbob wrote:Foxfyre wrote:Brandon I agree wholeheartedly with your post. There are some so blind to reality, however, that they object to Iraq becoming a democratic nation because we didn't go to Kuwait or Saudi Arabia or North Korea or some other country first. I think compassion only applies to some if it is their idea and they can be in control.
Again, what makes you think that "we' have any intention of allowing democracy to occur in Iraq? From many of your posts, I seriously question whether you even undestand what democracy is.
he means the "we" (the US, it's allies, and the UN) should try to get the Iraqi's to create a governing body that allows for a democratic style government that will represent the ENTIRE populace of Iraq.
That is indeed "our" intention. You are implying that "we" have some alternative plan, mind sharing them with us so we (here at A2K), too, can feel as enlightened as you are?
Consider the atention paid to Chalabi (still) by Cheney and Co. It sems likley that Chalabi will be installed as a US friendly dictator.
Have you seen any indication that the US has any intention of allowing democracy to develop? Over the past summer the US forcibly removed mayors from several Iraqi cities, mayors who had been elected in public proceedings, where ordinary Iraqis participated. They were removed and replaced with US appointees.
A call by Sistani for a conference of Iraqis to write a constitution and schedule elections was quashed by the US last year. Last month, a newspaper was closed down by the US because it printed anti-occupation rhetoric. This was not the first time this had happened. There have been no indications that the US intends to allow a democracy to develop in Iraq.
hobitbob wrote:Consider the atention paid to Chalabi (still) by Cheney and Co. It sems likley that Chalabi will be installed as a US friendly dictator.
Have you seen any indication that the US has any intention of allowing democracy to develop? Over the past summer the US forcibly removed mayors from several Iraqi cities, mayors who had been elected in public proceedings, where ordinary Iraqis participated. They were removed and replaced with US appointees.
A call by Sistani for a conference of Iraqis to write a constitution and schedule elections was quashed by the US last year. Last month, a newspaper was closed down by the US because it printed anti-occupation rhetoric. This was not the first time this had happened. There have been no indications that the US intends to allow a democracy to develop in Iraq.
But, apart from your opinion of administration intentions, you personally do believe, in principle, that we ought to stay and leave them with a constitutional democracy, right?
Brandon9000 wrote:hobitbob wrote:Consider the atention paid to Chalabi (still) by Cheney and Co. It sems likley that Chalabi will be installed as a US friendly dictator.
Have you seen any indication that the US has any intention of allowing democracy to develop? Over the past summer the US forcibly removed mayors from several Iraqi cities, mayors who had been elected in public proceedings, where ordinary Iraqis participated. They were removed and replaced with US appointees.
A call by Sistani for a conference of Iraqis to write a constitution and schedule elections was quashed by the US last year. Last month, a newspaper was closed down by the US because it printed anti-occupation rhetoric. This was not the first time this had happened. There have been no indications that the US intends to allow a democracy to develop in Iraq.
But, apart from your opinion of administration intentions, you personally do believe, in principle, that we ought to stay and leave them with a constitutional democracy, right?
Yes, even if that means an anti-US government is the result. Are you willing to accept such an outcome?
hobitbob wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:hobitbob wrote:Consider the atention paid to Chalabi (still) by Cheney and Co. It sems likley that Chalabi will be installed as a US friendly dictator.
Have you seen any indication that the US has any intention of allowing democracy to develop? Over the past summer the US forcibly removed mayors from several Iraqi cities, mayors who had been elected in public proceedings, where ordinary Iraqis participated. They were removed and replaced with US appointees.
A call by Sistani for a conference of Iraqis to write a constitution and schedule elections was quashed by the US last year. Last month, a newspaper was closed down by the US because it printed anti-occupation rhetoric. This was not the first time this had happened. There have been no indications that the US intends to allow a democracy to develop in Iraq.
But, apart from your opinion of administration intentions, you personally do believe, in principle, that we ought to stay and leave them with a constitutional democracy, right?
Yes, even if that means an anti-US government is the result. Are you willing to accept such an outcome?
All I want is for it to be a constitutional democracy. They have the right to choose any government that want, including an anti-US one. Once the Iraqi people have spoken, it is none of our business who they elect.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace