Supporters of the Coalition of the Willing's occupation of Iraq postulate that a large voter turnout will demonstrate a strong justification for the administration's decision to attempt nation-building in Iraq. Other supporters, rather less convincingly, argue that a poor turnout will also justify it, since the decision of voters to stay away from the polls would show how strong the anti-democratic opposition is, and since American national security is dependent upon the liberty of others ...
It's all irrelevant, of course, because the percentage of Iraqis participating means no more on Jan. 30 than it did in the previous election, when Saddam Hussein won 100 percent of the vote. What truly matters is how the election results are permitted to influence the makeup of the subsequent government.
I was a little surprised when Colin Powell assured the world that the Sunni minority, which may or may not be boycotting the election, would be guaranteed positions of power. If you're not running for office and no one voted for you, then how democratic is a system that grants you electoral office anyhow?
Even more worrisome are the rumors that "A formula is being actively sought to retain him [current Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi] as premier even if his showing is low" despite preliminary indications that his Iraqi National Accord party will receive only 8 percent of the vote and win only 22 seats of the 256 up for grabs in the Iraqi Parliament. In other words, vote for who you like, we'll choose the winner anyhow. One could hardly blame the poor, confused Iraqi who wonders how this Western-style democracy is substantially different from the previous system of pre-determined elections.
But potential Coalition hypocrisies aside, the real problem may be if the will of the Iraqi people is allowed free reign. The party leading in the polls is the Iran-backed Shiite Unified Iraqi Alliance, which DEBKAfile reports is projected by CENTCOM's chief analyst Gregory Hooker to win a near-majority of 120 seats. Its leader, the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, promises that while the Iraqi constitution will be based on Sharia, the government will not be a theocracy.
One can't help but harken back to the last time that the United States sanctioned the removal of a dictator and his replacement with a popular Shiite ayatollah. While the destruction of the Hussein regime is without question a good thing, I am not so certain that his replacement with a potential Khomeini was what Bush and his neoconservative advisers had in mind when they embarked on their Mideast nation-building.
Democracy, even in the corrupted sense of the limited representational form that now passes for the concept proper, has a very troubled history with regard to Islamic parties. Turkey is most often cited as the successful case, but few seem to recall that the Turkish military has directly interfered with the electoral process there four times since 1960, most recently in 1998 when it banned the most popular party in the Turkish parliament after forcing the removal of the nation's first Islamic government the year before. I rather doubt that anyone would consider America to be a healthy democracy if the U.S. Army were called out to cancel election results every time a Republican won the presidency, no matter how much the notion might tickle Hillary Clinton's fancy.
Democracy is not a panacea, which is one reason why America's founding fathers feared it so. There is a reason that Aristotle considered it one of the three evil forms of government, along with tyranny and ochlocracy, after all. It has either brought to power or sanctioned the legitimacy of a number of infamous men including Alcibiades, Daniel arap Moi, Yasser Arafat and Adolf Hitler.
Still, thanks to the U.S. president and soldiers from many countries, including America, the people of Iraq appear to have a chance to participate for once in determining how their lives are governed. I hope that they will be given permission to do so and that their choice will not only be wise, but honored by outside parties. And I certainly wish them well. But I also know that it is almost certain that the law of unintended consequences has unpleasant surprises in store for those arrogant enough to assume they can order the future to their liking.
Source: WorldNetDaily
It's all irrelevant, of course, because the percentage of Iraqis participating means no more on Jan. 30 than it did in the previous election, when Saddam Hussein won 100 percent of the vote. What truly matters is how the election results are permitted to influence the makeup of the subsequent government.
I was a little surprised when Colin Powell assured the world that the Sunni minority, which may or may not be boycotting the election, would be guaranteed positions of power. If you're not running for office and no one voted for you, then how democratic is a system that grants you electoral office anyhow?
Even more worrisome are the rumors that "A formula is being actively sought to retain him [current Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi] as premier even if his showing is low" despite preliminary indications that his Iraqi National Accord party will receive only 8 percent of the vote and win only 22 seats of the 256 up for grabs in the Iraqi Parliament. In other words, vote for who you like, we'll choose the winner anyhow. One could hardly blame the poor, confused Iraqi who wonders how this Western-style democracy is substantially different from the previous system of pre-determined elections.
But potential Coalition hypocrisies aside, the real problem may be if the will of the Iraqi people is allowed free reign. The party leading in the polls is the Iran-backed Shiite Unified Iraqi Alliance, which DEBKAfile reports is projected by CENTCOM's chief analyst Gregory Hooker to win a near-majority of 120 seats. Its leader, the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, promises that while the Iraqi constitution will be based on Sharia, the government will not be a theocracy.
One can't help but harken back to the last time that the United States sanctioned the removal of a dictator and his replacement with a popular Shiite ayatollah. While the destruction of the Hussein regime is without question a good thing, I am not so certain that his replacement with a potential Khomeini was what Bush and his neoconservative advisers had in mind when they embarked on their Mideast nation-building.
Democracy, even in the corrupted sense of the limited representational form that now passes for the concept proper, has a very troubled history with regard to Islamic parties. Turkey is most often cited as the successful case, but few seem to recall that the Turkish military has directly interfered with the electoral process there four times since 1960, most recently in 1998 when it banned the most popular party in the Turkish parliament after forcing the removal of the nation's first Islamic government the year before. I rather doubt that anyone would consider America to be a healthy democracy if the U.S. Army were called out to cancel election results every time a Republican won the presidency, no matter how much the notion might tickle Hillary Clinton's fancy.
Democracy is not a panacea, which is one reason why America's founding fathers feared it so. There is a reason that Aristotle considered it one of the three evil forms of government, along with tyranny and ochlocracy, after all. It has either brought to power or sanctioned the legitimacy of a number of infamous men including Alcibiades, Daniel arap Moi, Yasser Arafat and Adolf Hitler.
Still, thanks to the U.S. president and soldiers from many countries, including America, the people of Iraq appear to have a chance to participate for once in determining how their lives are governed. I hope that they will be given permission to do so and that their choice will not only be wise, but honored by outside parties. And I certainly wish them well. But I also know that it is almost certain that the law of unintended consequences has unpleasant surprises in store for those arrogant enough to assume they can order the future to their liking.
Source: WorldNetDaily
