New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | December 9, 2004

Like Corporal Klinger, Michael Young has an old Lebanese folk remedy for Iraq's election woes.

Comments

fyodor|12.9.04 @ 3:05PM|#

I wonder if the single constituency system was installed for the domestic audience, ie us. Most Americans would find the minority protecting type of system very difficult to swallow, even if he have a form of it that we barely recognize as such anymore. That being the Senate and its accompanying effect on the electoral college. Personally, I like how our founding da-das handled it, with the Great Compromise that created two houses, one protecing geographical minorities, the other more equitably representing all individuals whereever they lived.

|12.9.04 @ 3:18PM|#

Even if these are good ideas, Bush has spent so much time locking us into the position that any change in his plans would be a surrender to terrorists, that he cannot at this point change direction without that becoming a self-fufilling prophecy.

It's a basic flaw in the adminstration's way of thinking and talking about issues.

|12.9.04 @ 3:28PM|#

It seems to me that the argument in favor of a consociational system amounts to "the Sunnis will become violent unless they're given significantly more than their fair and democratic share of political power". Is it really a good idea to reward that kind of mentality?

|12.9.04 @ 3:38PM|#

Keep in mind we're not crusading over there, but the democracy we're jamming where the sun don't shine must be US democracy.

|12.9.04 @ 3:42PM|#

I think one key difference between Iraq and Lebanon in this context is the existence of oil in the former state, and its location within the country. Lebanese Christians account for a disproportionate share of the country's business elite, and if they fled en masse again, out of fear of being politically marginalized, then Lebanese Muslims would almost certainly be noticably worse off because of it. Hence there's an added incentive to make the Christians feel as if they're not persecuted. A similar dynamic exists with the ethnic Chinese communities in a number of Southeast Asian countries.

In Iraq, by contrast, while the Sunnis may also have a role within the business community disproportionate to their numbers, the majority Shias feel as if they can still rely upon the oil industry to help pay the bills should the Sunnis start bailing. In addition, the largest share of Iraq's oil reserves rest in Shia-dominated territory, with most of the remainder residing withing Kurdish-controlled land. If the Sunnis were to secede, the land mass they'd control would be almost oil-free.

All of this leads to the question of whether the Shias would have ever consented to the formation of a parliamentary system in which disproportionate representation played a role. Judging by the furor that Sistani raised merely over Kurdish veto power regarding a future Iraqi constitution, an affirmative answer is highly questionable.

|12.9.04 @ 3:44PM|#

This feels like the worst kind of identity politics -- 'I have no say because my chosen group is not ascendant.'

What ever happened to federalism?

I just can't see what's so magical about democracy that it's the solution at which all nations must inevitably arrive. Democracy sucks. Chop Iraq up into self-governing provinces under a federal system, and you might be able to get some degree of stability.

But perhaps that rests too heavily on a sense of national, rather than regional or cultural, identity. But if that's the case, I can't imagine *any* government other than pure tribalism working.

Some part of me wonders if the right solution isn't actually the (politically unpalatable) occupation of Iraq for a generation. Drag them kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Alas, even if that were possible, or likely to work, *I* sure as hell don't want to pay for it.

|12.9.04 @ 3:48PM|#

Isn't the supposed problem that we're *not* imposing US-style democracy? We have a partially-consociational federalist system, and the system we're "imposing" on Iraq is straight representative democracy.

Warren|12.9.04 @ 3:49PM|#

For crying out loud. This is the Middle East we're talking about. All of human history leads to one inescapable and undeniable conclusion. That region of the globe is permanently FUCKED UP, and no power in heaven or earth can unfuck it.

|12.9.04 @ 3:57PM|#

"Chop Iraq up into self-governing provinces under a federal system, and you might be able to get some degree of stability." The objection raised to this strategy is the destabilizing effect on the region - Iranian influence over Shiastan, Turkish concern with Kurdistan, Saudi desires to protect their Sunni co-religionists.

All the rhetoric the neocons have used about the pursuit of stability being a bad policy, and liberal democracy being the right goal, would seem to militate towards support for federalism or autonomy. Yet the admin simply will not countenance such a thing.

|12.9.04 @ 4:05PM|#

"Some part of me wonders if the right solution isn't actually the (politically unpalatable) occupation of Iraq for a generation. Drag them kicking and screaming into the 21st century."

isildur,
Rather than dragging, what about truly free trade and open borders? Those are the non-violent agents of peacemaking.

Even if we insist on dragging, why should the US have started in Iraq? Let me count the places where just a nudge might have done wonders.

|12.9.04 @ 5:06PM|#

All the rhetoric the neocons have used about the pursuit of stability being a bad policy, and liberal democracy being the right goal, would seem to militate towards support for federalism or autonomy.

The current administration goal is proportional representative democracy, which is inarguably a liberal and democratic form of government. The only reasons given why this is a bad plan is that (a) the majority will boss the minority around and (b) the Sunni will become violent.

So your argument, then, is that a true commitment to democracy and rejection of stability would require that the will of the majority be sacrificed in favor of the solution that avoids violence. It is backwards day in Boston today, I take it?

|12.10.04 @ 3:50PM|#

Dan, part of that "American-style democracy" you were endorsing above is based on limits to the power majorities have to impose their will on minorities.

|12.11.04 @ 2:18PM|#

I didn't endorse "America-style democracy" for Iraq, joe. I referred to the lack of America-style democracy as "the *supposed* problem", i.e., the problem people are saying exists. My point was simply that you were insisting that the supposedly less-democratic and more-stable solution was the one that people who valued democracy over stability should pick, and that that was silly.

Anyway, my feeling these days is that a federalist solution for Iraq would be both less democratic *and* less stable. There is no indication that the Shi'ites will vote as a bloc, and including the whole country in in voting pool will allow the Sunni and Kurds to team up with the secular Shi'ites to keep the Islamists in check.