The sentiment of the link is good; the practicality is another matter.
Taheri emphasizes the need for and efficacy of "free and fair elections."
But making them free and fair is the issue. This country has not had them since it was created after WWI. It did not have them prior to that.
More importantly, it arguable is not primed for free and fair elections.
Questions on the implementation of it:
Who are the candidates? How are they selected? By whom?
Who gets to vote? Women? Not women? Who decides?
What to do given the lack of a recent or reliable census? Use the World Food Program Identity Cards, ignoring their history of misuse and corruption?
For what offices do they run? President? Interim President? Prime Minister or Interim? Vice President? Parliament? Chairman of the Governing Council? Membership on the Governing Council? Governors of the 21 Governorates?
What about the Kurdish Governorates? What will become of their two Prime Ministers and autonomous Ministries?
What authority will the elected official(s) have? What law(s) will be enforced? How? By whom?
What will be the physical mechanism for voting? How to handle the very high illiteracy rate? How will candidates and their platforms be identified to the electorate?
What consideration should be given to the probability that even if the above obstacles are overcome, most Iraqis will simply vote as their family/tribal leaders, sheikhs, imams, or ayatollahs instruct them?
This is not a society equivalent to post WWII Germany or Japan. It is still basically a feudal society. Nepotism is not considered wrong; it is considered a duty. Families must take care of family members. Tribal leaders must take care of the tribe. Sheikhs dole out favors and protection. In return, the individual follows and does as instructed. The article touches on this when Aheri talks about the different "ways" and such.
It's a nice thought. It would result in nothing if implemented today, except perhaps civil war.
Taheri emphasizes the need for and efficacy of "free and fair elections."
But making them free and fair is the issue. This country has not had them since it was created after WWI. It did not have them prior to that.
More importantly, it arguable is not primed for free and fair elections.
Questions on the implementation of it:
Who are the candidates? How are they selected? By whom?
Who gets to vote? Women? Not women? Who decides?
What to do given the lack of a recent or reliable census? Use the World Food Program Identity Cards, ignoring their history of misuse and corruption?
For what offices do they run? President? Interim President? Prime Minister or Interim? Vice President? Parliament? Chairman of the Governing Council? Membership on the Governing Council? Governors of the 21 Governorates?
What about the Kurdish Governorates? What will become of their two Prime Ministers and autonomous Ministries?
What authority will the elected official(s) have? What law(s) will be enforced? How? By whom?
What will be the physical mechanism for voting? How to handle the very high illiteracy rate? How will candidates and their platforms be identified to the electorate?
What consideration should be given to the probability that even if the above obstacles are overcome, most Iraqis will simply vote as their family/tribal leaders, sheikhs, imams, or ayatollahs instruct them?
This is not a society equivalent to post WWII Germany or Japan. It is still basically a feudal society. Nepotism is not considered wrong; it is considered a duty. Families must take care of family members. Tribal leaders must take care of the tribe. Sheikhs dole out favors and protection. In return, the individual follows and does as instructed. The article touches on this when Aheri talks about the different "ways" and such.
It's a nice thought. It would result in nothing if implemented today, except perhaps civil war.
The Fool
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2002
- Messages
- 16,528
Sorry but this is basically wrong. Despite the best effort ofGarrette said:
Saddam to oppress the people and the US British and Australias best attempt to blast them back into the feudal age, It is simply wrong.
Iraqis are an urbanised, educated and cultured society. Please lets not get into the British style of colonial patronisation. To describe the Builders of Baghdad, its history and culture as feudal just doesn't hold water.
The trouble with making statements like "we will allow them to have free elections" is that you end up looking stupid when you step in and say that the winners of the free elections are not acceptable to you...or, as is more likely, that certain people are simply not allowed to stand for election.. Do you imagine for one moment that the Baath party will be allowed to run? No...and fair enough too. So why not just drop the "free elections" claim?
All quotations by The Fool:
No, it's basically correct.
They were feudalistic before Saddam, before the Baath Party, and before Faisel.
They used to be well educated. In pockets they still are. As a culture they still value education, but the quality of it has slipped drastically.
As far as being urbanised, they are partly so. They are, however, to a large extent still rural and even partly nomadic (in the Bedouin sense). Many, but not all, of the urban areas are simply villages that have grown together. Basrah is like this, imo, as is Nasiriyah. Baghdad and Mosul are urban, but they, too, have large areas of what amount to "city villages."
Cultured? Define that, please. Then point to where I denied it. Culture is not necessarily exclusive of feudalism.
Why not? They weren't even feudal at the time they built Baghdad. Are you suggesting they were modern, in the twentieth century sense, when Baghdad was built? I might suggest a bit of study on how Baghdad was built. Not in a day, mind you. Different rulers building different parts. It's not a strictly homogenous place.
I don't think I said this.
I get the impression that you misunderstood my post. Is everyone in the US or the UK or France or Germany or Denmark allowed to stand for election? Should everyone be allowed on the ballot in Iraq? If so, then it's flying in the face of your cultured Iraqi tradition. Do you think the Shiia will stand by for a female to run for the office of president?
Is this directed at me? This was sort of my point; the difficulty in having free and fair elections.
Edited to fix a quotation
No, it's basically correct.
They were feudalistic before Saddam, before the Baath Party, and before Faisel.
They used to be well educated. In pockets they still are. As a culture they still value education, but the quality of it has slipped drastically.
As far as being urbanised, they are partly so. They are, however, to a large extent still rural and even partly nomadic (in the Bedouin sense). Many, but not all, of the urban areas are simply villages that have grown together. Basrah is like this, imo, as is Nasiriyah. Baghdad and Mosul are urban, but they, too, have large areas of what amount to "city villages."
Cultured? Define that, please. Then point to where I denied it. Culture is not necessarily exclusive of feudalism.
Why not? They weren't even feudal at the time they built Baghdad. Are you suggesting they were modern, in the twentieth century sense, when Baghdad was built? I might suggest a bit of study on how Baghdad was built. Not in a day, mind you. Different rulers building different parts. It's not a strictly homogenous place.
I don't think I said this.
I get the impression that you misunderstood my post. Is everyone in the US or the UK or France or Germany or Denmark allowed to stand for election? Should everyone be allowed on the ballot in Iraq? If so, then it's flying in the face of your cultured Iraqi tradition. Do you think the Shiia will stand by for a female to run for the office of president?
Is this directed at me? This was sort of my point; the difficulty in having free and fair elections.
Edited to fix a quotation
Do you imagine for one moment that the Baath party will be allowed to run? No...and fair enough too. So why not just drop the "free elections" claim?
For the same reason one should not drop the "free election claim" about Germany just becuase the neo-nazi party is not allowed to run for government.
For the same reason that one should not drop the "free election claim" about the USA just because convicted felons are not allowed to vote.
For the same reason one should not drop the "free election claim" about Germany just becuase the neo-nazi party is not allowed to run for government.
For the same reason that one should not drop the "free election claim" about the USA just because convicted felons are not allowed to vote.
The sentiment of the link is good; the practicality is another matter.
Taheri emphasizes the need for and efficacy of "free and fair elections."
But making them free and fair is the issue. This country has not had them since it was created after WWI. It did not have them prior to that.
Quite true, but that's not Taheri's point.
He objects to the belief that the choice is between free elections ending in an islamist government and coerced pseudo-elections. He claims, with data to prove it, that free elections will not result in anything remotely like an islamist victory.
I doubt Taheri would disagree with what you're saying about the obstacles on the road to such elections. He would, however, be suspicious (if his previous columns are any indication) of those who claim that creating such elections is impossible. He would suspect that what motivates such people is not so much actual difficulties, but fear of islamist victory--which he considers unfounded.
What consideration should be given to the probability that even if the above obstacles are overcome, most Iraqis will simply vote as their family/tribal leaders, sheikhs, imams, or ayatollahs instruct them?
Taheri would answer this by saying that this is no more true in Iraq than it is true than registered democrats in the USA vote "simply vote as the national democratic convention instructs them".
Taheri's point is that the idea of the "dumb native who just does as his leader says"--very convenient to those who wish to rule by the tried-and-true method of giving the local leader money and having him say the "right" thing to the dumb natives--is as much a caricature of Iraqis as, say, the banana-eating, missionary-boiling, spear-carrying blacks from the Tarzan books are of Africans.
He should know, being one of those natives himself (from Iran, in this case), who for some mysterious reason did not just do as his mullah told him...
Taheri emphasizes the need for and efficacy of "free and fair elections."
But making them free and fair is the issue. This country has not had them since it was created after WWI. It did not have them prior to that.
Quite true, but that's not Taheri's point.
He objects to the belief that the choice is between free elections ending in an islamist government and coerced pseudo-elections. He claims, with data to prove it, that free elections will not result in anything remotely like an islamist victory.
I doubt Taheri would disagree with what you're saying about the obstacles on the road to such elections. He would, however, be suspicious (if his previous columns are any indication) of those who claim that creating such elections is impossible. He would suspect that what motivates such people is not so much actual difficulties, but fear of islamist victory--which he considers unfounded.
What consideration should be given to the probability that even if the above obstacles are overcome, most Iraqis will simply vote as their family/tribal leaders, sheikhs, imams, or ayatollahs instruct them?
Taheri would answer this by saying that this is no more true in Iraq than it is true than registered democrats in the USA vote "simply vote as the national democratic convention instructs them".
Taheri's point is that the idea of the "dumb native who just does as his leader says"--very convenient to those who wish to rule by the tried-and-true method of giving the local leader money and having him say the "right" thing to the dumb natives--is as much a caricature of Iraqis as, say, the banana-eating, missionary-boiling, spear-carrying blacks from the Tarzan books are of Africans.
He should know, being one of those natives himself (from Iran, in this case), who for some mysterious reason did not just do as his mullah told him...
Well, Skeptic, I think we're close to agreeing on this, and on the part we don't, I would be ecstatic to be wrong.
I assume, though, that when you say "dumb native" you are using it as a rhetorical device as I have neither said nor implied it. "Obedient and loyal native", perhaps, but not dumb.
I agree it's not necessarily a choice between an Islamic government and pseudo-elections; I'm not yet convinced tribal loyalties can be overcome. I hope I'm wrong and readily admit that I'm no expert on it.
edited to correct a reference to Skeptic's post
I assume, though, that when you say "dumb native" you are using it as a rhetorical device as I have neither said nor implied it. "Obedient and loyal native", perhaps, but not dumb.
I agree it's not necessarily a choice between an Islamic government and pseudo-elections; I'm not yet convinced tribal loyalties can be overcome. I hope I'm wrong and readily admit that I'm no expert on it.
edited to correct a reference to Skeptic's post