BTW -- what leads you to suppose "Of course they want a democratic, representative form of government. "
That may not be what they want at all. It may be what we want for them.
You wrote: "What is not wanted is a theocracy."
That may be what WE do not want -- not necessarily what they do not want.
It's my humble opinion that the final product will be something between what is practiced in Jordan and Egypt. c.i.
I LOVE Catch 22 - it just never goes out of style, does it?
Isn't a democracy just a form of gov chosen by the people? Husband and I had a set-to about this recently; him thinking representative gov had to go hand in hand with democracy...
Can't a theocracy be a democracy?
What exactly has to be done to ring the democracy bell? How the gov is chosen? How liberal the individual freedoms are?
A theocracy is not a particularly democratic form of government since it imposes religious laws where they are not wanted. Iraq one must remember is not as homogeneous nation. Under the Saddam regime the Sunni's were the ruling class with the Kurds and Shies being disenfranchised. Should the Shies now take power the Sunnis and Kurds will become the underclass? And than of course there are the 500,000 Christians and millions of secular Iraqis where do they fit.
There can be no democracy where there is no freedom and there can be no freedom in a theocracy. The poison of religion infects everything it touches.
.
I've been reading reviews of Zacaria's book and I think he's right on target about constitutional liberty being the most important thing, not democracy (not at first, anyway). I'm not sure how compatible constitutional liberty would be with a theocracy. Theocracies can be fundamentalist or could, I suppose, be liberal. Freedom comes first; democracy is another matter...
Zakaria is brilliant and insightful.
Hope somebody in the current admin is paying attention to him.
My theocratic democracy question was supposing a very liberal type set up, and fashioned like the monarchy/democracy in Britain or other countries--
you have your 'figurehead' (Queen/Imam/whatevah) and then a law-making body. I think it could be done. It would be awful to have a religious leader, but watching those nutty people, beating themselves in the head with swords, I don't know if they can be persuaded to keep the Imams and Mullahs in the mosques and out of gov't.
How to Build a Democratic Iraq
Summary: What follows the war in Iraq will be at least as important as the war itself. Nurturing democracy there after Saddam won't be easy. But it may not be impossible either. Iraq has several assets doing for it, including an educated middle class and a history of political pluralism under an earlier monarchy.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030501faessay11218/adeed-dawisha-karen-dawisha/how-to-build-a-democratic-iraq.html
Tartarin
On the other hand the "liberation" of Iraq may bear bitter fruit.
au1929 wrote:A theocracy is not a particularly democratic form of government since it imposes religious laws where they are not wanted. Iraq one must remember is not as homogeneous nation. Under the Saddam regime the Sunni's were the ruling class with the Kurds and Shies being disenfranchised. ... ... There can be no democracy where there is no freedom and there can be no freedom in a theocracy. The poison of religion infects everything it touches.
au
Quote:"In theory, there is no reason why a theocracy and a democratic form of government are incompatible--vox populi, vox dei ("the voice of the people is the voice of God")--but historically those nations regarded as theocracies have been ruled by a theologically trained elite." From Encyclopedia of Politics and Religion, ed. Robert Wuthnow. 2 vols. (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1998).
A remarkable example that theocracy can be democratic, is given by the
Rustamid Kingdom (also spelled Rostamid) (AD 761-909), an Islamic state on the high plateau of northern Algeria, founded by followers of the Ibaîyyah branch of Khãrijism.
Quote:"It was one of several kingdoms that arose in opposition to the new Åbbasid dynasty and its Eastern orientation. The Khãrijites preached a puritanical, democratic, and egalitarian theocracy that found support among the Berber tribes. The state was governed by imams descended from Åbd ar-Rãmn ibn Rustam, the austere Persian who founded the state. These imams were themselves under the supervision of the religious leaders and the chief judge. The kingdom was renowned for its religious toleration and secular learning. The state was very active in the trans-Saharan trade, and its size fluctuated with the power of its leaders. The Rustamid kingdom ended with the capture of its capital, Tãhart (near modern Tihert), by the Shrite Fatimids in 909." From: britannica.com
au1929 wrote:The poison of religion infects everything it touches.
.
Hail hail!
Crusades against terrorism included.
Thanks, au and Walter. Interestingly, I just heard on the news that the Bush admin. is not against an Islamic democracy, which is what I was trying to describe.
They (the admin.) only says the new Iraqi gov't must not exclude or diminish the individual rights of any religious group. I think this sort of answers the question, in my mind, of how a democracy can exist in a theocracy. Basic, equal human rights, and govt chosen by the people.
Walter
If 1000 year old history is to be believed there was a theocratic democracy once. Does that mean it could ever happen in todays world with today's religious warfare and hate. IMO about as much chance a a snowball in hell.
The main problem with the theocratic ruling is as follows: motives of the rulers (regardless of their being democratically elected or not) may be absolutely irrational, based on literal implementation of mystical commandments of their religion and non-explicable from the standpoint of direct interests of citizens (successful economy, peace, etc.). Such a behavior makes such regimes strongly unpredictable, hence dangerous if they possess a certain level of military power.
steissd and au--
Of course, a theocracy with no external boundaries wouldn't work.
The group that sat down with Garner the other day, agreed to some specifics. I can't remember what they were, but there were important in the formation of the new gov't.
What I am thinking is we could appease the bulk of Iraqis, who will go about smacking themselves in the heads with swords and saying American has had undue influence, if they are not allowed to have some religious man with a towel on his head as their ultimate leader... They could have their religious leader-- with certain democratic rules governing the Imam's behavior--
What kind of punishment can and cannot be meted out by the police and gov't...
Personal freedom laws...
Civil rights...
au
I only gave this example, since I just read/worked about that period.
Yes, I believe, it can happen again. But I don't see any example now.
(An aside: "Milli Görüs" is considered as a "radical islamistic organisation" (Turkish) here in Germany. They have about 25,000 members here, are observed by the "Federal Agency for the Defense of the Constitution" ... and are now subsidised (morally and pecuniary) by the momentary Turkish government.)
Good comments from everyone on this complex topic.
As dlowen pointed out -- there is a Catch-22 involved.
We in American may despise the idea of a theocracy -- and in fact have instituted safeguards to see that it cannot happen here -- but that may simply not be the case elsewhere.
If a majority of the Iraqis want a theocracy -- then democratic principles require that we give them that opportunity.
But we don't want to. And although Sophia may have heard that the administration now is willing to allow an Islamic democracy -- it seems to me they are playing games with words. So long as the Iraqis have a government of which we approve - they are allowed to have whatever we choose. If they decide to have a government of which we disapprove -- they cannot chose that form of government.
I think the administration was getting some heat on account of their insistence (Powell and Rumsfeld) that an Islamic government would not be acceptable. Now they are saying that an Islamic government is acceptable, but only if it guarantees certain things for non-Islamics. But what if the majority want the state to be an Islamic state period?
Either we are allowing them to experience democracy and choose what they will -- or we are denying them democracy.
That is just the way it is -- although I'm sure there are many who will attempt imaginative rationalizations in rebuttal.
OK, how can we provide that the democratic Islamic government will not start war in the Middle East for making it totally Islamic the next day after it starts functioning? Islamic doctrine implies such a concept as jihad... By the way, not only Israel is endangered in such a case, but secular Muslim regimes, like these in Jordan, Egypt, Morocco or Tunisia as well. Even Qaddafi and Assad cannot feel themselves safe if such a religious war bursts out...
Sofia
We can sit down with the religious leaders and map out controls. However, you must remember our influence can only be temporary. Once order is restored and a functioning government is in place we will be gone. From that point on the Iraqi government will function on it's own making and enforcing it's laws as it sees fit.
Walter
You could of course be correct and a theocracy could be democratic. However, since religion bears more weight than freedom IMO it could not remain so.
Frank--
A non-creative rationalization and a spank of your buttocks.
Could we limit our 'busybodying' to getting whatever gov't they choose to stop short of inhumane treatment of citizens and the establishment and respect for equal rights-- and let them work their crazy magic within those loose perimeters? That's not really impeding their right to rule, is it?
