Thoughts on the future form of government of Iraq

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

Too often people seem to forget that Democracy is more than just majority rules. Democracy also entails protection of minority rights. In many posts people seem to suggest that if a free and fair referendum was held in Iraq and if a majority voted in favor of forming a Shia led clerical Islamic Republic that that should be OK. Maybe it is. I’m not sure.

Let’s assume 51% of the people in Iraq want such a government as their first choice and 49% vehemently oppose it. Assume that the Kurds and Sunnis really, really oppose such a thing and vow to oppose it in every way possible.

Now let’s assume that 90% of the Iraqi people would consent to be governed under a parliamentary system of rule like in the UK. Even though it’s not the first choice of the Shias, they would agree to such a governing structure because they would have the majority of seats in parliament. The Sunnis and Kurds agree because they know that they would have influence over policy even if only the influence of a minority party.

Basically, you’ve got a situation where either of the above scenarios could pass on a referendum. It is my viewpoint that the best government that could exist in Iraq is the form of government that the greatest majority of Iraqis believe they can live under and are willing to consent to. Stated differently, the best government is the form of government that has the least vehement opposition. Whatever it is, it is likely to be the second or third choice of virtually everybody rather than their first choice. I have often heard judges say that the fairest decision is usually one where both opposing parties are equally dissatisfied with the result.

The greatest challenge will probably be getting general consent of all interest groups in Iraq to the form and type of referendum to present to the Iraqi people.

Anyone care to engage in a theoretical discussion of these issues without causing the thread to degenerate into a forum for bashing the US?

2

What is wrong with a democratically elected theocracy? (I must have a coined a new idea :blush:)

3

That doesn’t really answer my questions/concerns. If 51% strongly want a theocracy and 49% strongly oppose one, isn’t it better to find a form of government with less opposition? If 90% are willing to consent to some other form of government (even though it’s not their first choice), isn’t that better?

4

myvoice in all sincerity i think your assumptions are wrong and quite contrary to the existing reality in Iraq, so therefore to discuss somethings on those assumptions is really a non starter. I hope you don't mind my saying so.

5

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Rhia: *
myvoice in all sincerity i think your assumptions are wrong and quite contrary to the existing reality in Iraq, so therefore to discuss somethings on those assumptions is really a non starter. I hope you don't mind my saying so.
[/QUOTE]

I don't mind you saying so but would appreciate you giving me some link or other insight into why you feel that way.

I'm quite sure that there are a lot of devout Shias who would like nothing better than to establish a Shia led clerical Islamic Republic in Iraq. This might even be more than 50% of the total populace (I just don't know).

I do not, however, get a strong feeling that the sentiment for such a government is held by the overwhelming majority of Iraqis (I'll define that arbitrarily as 70% or more). In my mind, it's probably much too early to really tell what the Iraqis want since they probably don't even know yet what all their options are.

In your opinion, what percentage of the Iraqi people should be in favor of such a form of government before it should be implemented?

6

myvoice, you admit finally that Democracy may not be all that it's thought to be.

7

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
myvoice, you admit finally that Democracy may not be all that it's thought to be.
[/QUOTE]

????

If you think that something in my posts constitutes an admission of such a thing, you and I must clearly have a different view of what democracy is. Please explain.

8

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *

I don't mind you saying so but would appreciate you giving me some link or other insight into why you feel that way.

I'm quite sure that there are a lot of devout Shias who would like nothing better than to establish a Shia led clerical Islamic Republic in Iraq. This might even be more than 50% of the total populace (I just don't know).

I do not, however, get a strong feeling that the sentiment for such a government is held by the overwhelming majority of Iraqis (I'll define that arbitrarily as 70% or more). In my mind, it's probably much too early to really tell what the Iraqis want since they probably don't even know yet what all their options are.

In your opinion, what percentage of the Iraqi people should be in favor of such a form of government before it should be implemented?
[/QUOTE]

I don't have any links as such that I can refer you to but hopefully I'll be able to put my thoughts down later.

I would like to know why (vibes aside) you might think that the overwhelming majority of Iraqi's may not be in favour of an Islamic republic and what you think are all possible options.

I'm not sure about percentages but if a year down the majority is 51% to 49% in favour, I think it should be implemented, assuming of course the elections are fair and free in every sense.

9

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Rhia: *
I would like to know *why (vibes aside) you might think that the overwhelming majority of Iraqi's may not be in favour of an Islamic republic and what you think are all possible options.
[/QUOTE]

Well, first off, I find it a little hard to believe that 100% of the Shia majority population would be in favor of a theocracy led by clerics. I'd assume that the most devout would be in favor but don't know what percentage this would be.

Second, the historical divisions between Sunnis and Shias lead me to believe that the majority of the Sunnis would not be in favor of a Shia led theocracy.

Third, I don't think the majority of Kurds would be in favor of that either.

Fourth, the pre-Saddam history of Iraq is indicative of the fact that secularism might be more ingrained in a fairly significant percentage of Iraqis, and most predominantly in Iraqi business leaders.

Thus, I could envision a referendum where more than 50% vote in favor of a theocracy but seriously question whether the approval of such a form of government would generate support from 65, 70, 80 or 90% of the people.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Rhia: *
I'm not sure about percentages but if a year down the majority is 51% to 49% in favour, I think it should be implemented, assuming of course the elections are fair and free in every sense.
[/QUOTE]

I'm not saying yes or no to this possibility. I am questioning. I think the strength of feelings of the 49% opposition to such a government is relevant. If the depth of feelings of the opposition guarantees that Iraq will experience civil war and ethnic infighting, I'd say this is no good.

A good government is not measured merely because it satisfies the desires of the majority. It is also measured by how minority interests are considered, protected and satisfied. If the vast majority of the 51% who wanted a theocracy as their first choice would also consent (as their second choice) to a parliamentary form of government in which they represented the majority party AND the vast majority of the 49% who oppose a theocracy would also consent to the parliament, isn't that better for all concerned?

10

A question: Are you supposing that a 'theocracy' is by its very nature unable to protect and satisfy minority interests?

11

A 'theocracy' by its definition implies that it is unable to protect and satisfy minority interests.

myvoices first sentence in his first post sums up why a theocracy - whether it is imposed, elected, or falls from the sky - is not a democracy. If a majority voted for a dictatorship, does it mean that country has a democracy because the majority voted for it? A recent example is Algeria in '92 where they almost swapped one form of repressive government for another.

It would only be a democracy for those that voted for the theocracy. The remaining people would be living in someone else's version of democracy.

12

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
A 'theocracy' by its definition implies that it is unable to protect and satisfy minority interests.
[/QUOTE]

Explain.

13

Nash

It's called Nash's equilibrium. Look it up.

14

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *A recent example is Algeria in '92 where they almost swapped one form of repressive government for another.
[/QUOTE]

Oh my God. I cannot belive that you just said that.

The elections in Algeria in '92 led to the ruling party, the repressive Front de Liberation National (FLN) remaining in power, despite having lost the elections.

They simply arrested the leaders of the Front Islamique de Salut (FIS), which had won the elections, threw them in jail, and declared the elections to be null and void.

The government in Algeria did not change as a result of the '92 elections - the FLN remained in power.

Perhaps if they had graciously let the Islamist FIS into power following the FIS victory in the elections, the repression sen in Algeria over the past 11 years would have been avoided under a fair and just Islamic order.

15

there are couple of options for iraq democracy .

Three examples are available. The first is the United States, which forbids any official religion and guarantees the freedom of worship of all religions. The example at the opposite end of the scale is India. Its constitution recognizes 16 official languages, seven official religions (plus hundreds of official sects), and specifies in detail the powers of all its constituent states. That is why its constitution is the longest in the world, running to thousands of pages. Though India is a secular state, it ensures the religious freedom of its citizens by explicit guarantees extended to each. Either the U.S. or Indian method could work for Iraq.
The third example is Switzerland. It is divided into cantons, each of which is dominated by one of its linguistic, ethnic and religious components — German, French, Italian and Romansch. The Swiss government is a “loose federation” in which all its cantons (like states in the United States, or provinces in other nations) have a high degree of autonomy, with only minimal functions reserved to the national government.
All three of these nations are constitutional republics. Though all are generally referred to as democracies, the constitutions of all three forbid a simple majority from changing the accommodations made for their religious or other minorities. All three constitutions forbid amendment except through various types of supermajority decisions.

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030507-65782432.htm

16

Should be a secular government and a democracy.

17

Perhaps we are missing a point here. Frequently even in the sternest of democracies a thin majority does not rule. A "super majority" is required in critical issues. This can be defined as 60%, or 66%, or some form of regional electoral vote. The point is that the super majority protects minorities from dominating rule on issues important to the entire country. Certainly this will be a key issue in formulating a constituttion.

Almost certainly the most organized groups will tend to dominate early. The Shia's are well organized, but the Kurds have also managed a blossoming economy, and they are experienced at transforming an administration from tyranny to a more representative form. I get the impression that the Kurds would never tollerate an Islamic Republic. The Kurdish areas have a relatively modern feel with free speech, internet cafes, and secular view similar to Turkey. They would break away before they bowed to the Ayatollahs.

18

I say we jack them into the Matrix.

19

OG: The concept of "super majority" is most critical in terms of the acceptance of the form and structure of the government and adoption of a Constitution. Unless you can first establish consent to be governed by the vast majority of the population in accordance with a body of law, you are destined for failure. 51% giving such consent with 49% withholding consent is a recipe for disaster.

I don't think enough time has passed for the Iraqi people to even begin to think in terms of the future in a big picture sense. It will take time for thinkers and leaders to emerge, communicate their messages to the people, form interest groups, and build coalitions. Right now, the Iraqi people are more concerned about getting the power on, accessing clean water supplies, imposing an effective police and security force in the country, etc. Once all these things are done and the Iraqi people realize they don't have to sell their souls to any particular leader or leadership group to acquire and maintain these basic necessities of life, they can focus their attention to the other issues of governance.

I hope that whatever form of government they ultimately choose is supported by and consented to by 80-90% of the people.

20

maybe they should learn from the USA and adopt the crazy electorate system .. so the underpopulated white majority states get more say than the overpopulated but ethnically diverse states.