Why Iraq will never be democratic

[Hugo]

The US and the UN are chasing an impossible pipe-dream. Central government is never going to be in the best interests of the Iraqi people.

The main problem in Iraq is that the people are tribal. In a democratic system, people will vote along tribal lines because tribal ethics require it. All a particular clan has to do is put forward a candidate, and the members of that clan can all be expected to support him. What this means is that the most populous clan will win every election.

This is a problem because tribal ethics also demand that tribal members further the interests of their tribe, even at the expense of others. What this means is that the newly elected tribal government will use the awesome power of central government to further their own tribal interests at the expense of others. This might mean extra taxes for other tribes, the exclusion of other tribes from civil service positions, punitive business legislation designed to force the businesses of other clans from the marketplace, and it might even go so far as ethnic cleansing and genocide.

Saddam Hussein was an example of how far this can go. Saddam's government was essentially a tribal government of a few Tikriti families, using great violence and brutality to further their own interests at the expense of other Iraqis - thousands tortured and executed while Saddam and his henchmen built palaces.

Religious persecution also factors into this. Saddam was a Sunni, and he used his position of power to brutalize Shi'ite Muslims. Similarly, whatever the religious faith of the elected clan, we can expect that clan to make law and use the power of government to further their own sect at the expense of others. A Sunni government could well be expected to grant government favour to Sunni mosques and clerics, and might levy dhimmi against Shi'ites and other religious faiths. It might even go so far as to outlaw them.

Democracy has not produced violence and oppression on such a massive scale in Western societies because those societies are not organised on the basis of tribal and clan allegiance. The largest unit of kinship in Western society is generally the nuclear family, and the nearer branches of the extended family. But the Arab culture and society is not the same, and to pretend it is will only lead to further bloodshed and suffering.

The folly of the US administration and of the UN is to believe that Arabs will cast off their millenia-old culture and society and adopt a Western one that, by all accounts, they despise. Questions of whether they should or should not are irrelevant, the fact is that they won't, and any enterprise made on the assumption that they will is doomed to failure.

[August1991]

Democracy has not produced violence and oppression on such a massive scale in Western societies because those societies are not organised on the basis of tribal and clan allegiance.

Really? What is Europe?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

While you may be right with the European analogy, Hugo raised some good points. Afghanistan is still vehemently tribal. Iraq too, to a certain degree, for Hugo forgot the Kurds, but the main point is

The folly of the US administration and of the UN is to believe that Arabs will cast off their millenia-old culture and society and adopt a Western one that, by all accounts, they despise.

Less so with the UN than the US, for obvious reasons, but still, folly.

[Guest eureka]

While I don't necessarily agree that Iraq will never be a democratic society, I have to agree with much that you say.

At this time, I wonder whether Iraq is not doomed to civil war and to a breakup into its three more or less, natural parts. It could become a democracy of sorts, but only as a rather loose federation.

[August1991]

I was going to start another thread on "why democracy is bad" but I might as well use Hugo's start.

[The question is broader. The Left often says that Corporation must be brought under the control of "democratic governments" which are the "only legitimate expression of popular will".]

This is false. I'll give two fundamental reasons.

1) By making it "one man, one vote", democracy inherently leads to mob rule. I think that's Hugo's point. This is partly corrected by having explicit rights protecting individuals or minorities against the will of the majority. Federal states are another solution (a separate jursidiction houses a minority). I suspect a successful democratic Iraq will be federal.

The real problem here is that "one man, one vote" is a bad method. Different people have different feelings about things. For example, some people feel strongly about Kyoto and others care much less. There is at the moment no way to get people to reveal honestly their feelings about such questions.

2) One person's vote makes absolutely no difference to the overall result. Worse, no one gains anything by voting. From the individual's viewpoint, it makes no sense to vote. This becomes more obvious if one considers the time required to figure out what the various politicians are saying. Most people won't bother. As Hugo pointed out in the case of Iraq, people frequently save themselves the trouble of all that research and merely vote for their "tribe".

People are understandably far more informed about selecting a mate or buying a house than they ever are for voting in an election.

I think Trudeau is wrongly credited with saying that "The ultimate measure of the success of a democracy is in how the majority treats the minority." IOW, the minority should still sometimes have a say despite what the majority wants.

[Guest eureka]

Is it not plausible to say that Corporations must be brought under transnational control in this era of Globalisation? The last period of Globalisation a century ago led us to excesses in the Capitalist system like those we see today.

One consequence of that was the Great Depression and the revival of Nationalism and protectionism.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

I think you should go ahead with your thread. Democracy is 'bad' for a number of reasons, but it is still inherently good 'in principle'. The reason Canada's is so bad is that, as some say, we elect a 'dictator' every four years, and that 'dictator' says 'the people gave us a mandate to push our adgenda, regardless of what new information becomes available or whatever new situations arise'.

Voting on bills, such as the US does, is more akin to true democracy, as the people have a more intimate say in policy. That system is imperfect also, for the 'majority opinion' on issues such as the death penalty can change with the winds, or one wrongful conviction.

[Michael Hardner]

One person's vote makes absolutely no difference to the overall result. Worse, no one gains anything by voting. From the individual's viewpoint, it makes no sense to vote.

Yes, and polling does a lot of the work before election day anyway.

[August1991]

Democracy is 'bad' for a number of reasons, but it is still inherently good 'in principle'.

On the contrary, democracy is good in practice but bad in principle.

A constitutional, representative democracy means the majority is hemmed in and so in practice, the worst features of the mob are controlled. The representatives, in addition, can do deals on our behalf and express partly our varying feelings on issues.

Yes, and polling does a lot of the work before election day anyway.

Michael, polls have nothing to do with the pointlessness of your individual vote. I am not saying that one person is insignificant in the world. I am saying that one vote is insignificant in an election.

Voting on bills, such as the US does, is more akin to true democracy, as the people have a more intimate say in policy.

The weakness of democracy applies as much to the US as to Canada.

Is it not plausible to say that Corporations must be brought under transnational control in this era of Globalisation?

Corporations are now under proper control (that the Left says otherwise depresses me to no end). When most people buy products from Walmart, work for Walmart or buy Walmart shares, they research, investigate and check what it is they are doing. Why? Because each individual benefits directly from making a good choice. "Sears offers better working conditions." "Canadian Tire has it cheaper."

Now, compare that to the election of a (transnational) government. One of my neigbours told me he paid $7,000 in federal taxes last year. He doesn't know the name of our deputy and he didn't vote in the last election.

Of course, my neighbour benefits from federal government expenditures. But those benefits are not contingent in any way on his individual vote. His benefits at Walmart on the other hand are directly contingent on his purchase choice.

The last period of Globalisation a century ago led us to excesses in the Capitalist system like those we see today.

One consequence of that was the Great Depression and the revival of Nationalism and protectionism.

The last period of Globalization ended in August 1914 and the outbreak of World War I.

The calm, tranquillity, stability and economic development of the 19th century gave us the basic scientific discoveries for all the technology we have in the 20th century.

I'll stand corrected but it seems that since the 1920s, there has not been any great insights in physics on a par with the Michelson-Morley experiments, Einstein or Planck. Electricity, radio transmissions, radiation were all ideas of the 19th century. (OK, the double helix arrived in the 20th...)

As to the Great Depression, I think most would now agree that the US Fed really, really bungled in the early 1930s. The international evidence shows clearly that economies improved when their countries left the gold standard (and stopped imitating the foolish policies of the US Fed at the time).

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

QUOTE 

Voting on bills, such as the US does, is more akin to true democracy, as the people have a more intimate say in policy. 

The weakness of democracy applies as much to the US as to Canada.

I am not sure you are getting what I am saying. Certain states in the US have voted on bill such as the decriminilization of Marijuana, (Alaska and California, for example) and the death penalty (Florida and Texas, for example). I am not sure how this is an example of the 'weakness of democracy'.

I also do not understand how the rest of your post applies to voting, unless you are one of those ultra-right wingers who believes in the abolishment of the gov't in favour of 'responsible anarchy'.

[Guest eureka]

This could make a very good discussion. One thing that you might consider in downplaying the importance of a single vote is that it is estimated that, in normal times, only about 4% of the electorate is a "swing" vote.

Elections are all about winning over that 4%. That may not be an individual vote but it enhances the importance of each vote.

[theloniusfleabag]

One must assume, if one believes in only "Cogito ergo sum', that one's vote is also the only one. If one were to pretend that no other voters turned out, (due to overwhelming apathy) then your own vote is the swing vote.

Small things make up big things. One may say that the individual vote is inconsequential, but this is not true. Try casting your vote for the Marxist-Leninist party next time. What if the majority did the same? It would be your last vote for a while.

[easychair]

Democracy has not produced violence and oppression on such a massive scale in Western societies because those societies are not organised on the basis of tribal and clan allegiance.

Really? What is Europe?

Very insightful post. I think most behavioral psychologists would say that it will take a generation or two of youth indoctrination to overcome tribalism in Iraq. Eliminating religious and ethnic tensions could take a lot longer depending on how hard you want a new dictatorship to come down on those problems.

I think a quasi-democracy could work in Iraq with a benevolent dictator at the top to over rule the types of abuses you describe. But where are you going to find a benevolent dictator? You guessed it. And he'll be sure to be benevolent towards big oil too.

[easychair]

Democracy is 'bad' for a number of reasons, but it is still inherently good 'in principle'.

On the contrary, democracy is good in practice but bad in principle.

A constitutional, representative democracy means the majority is hemmed in and so in practice, the worst features of the mob are controlled. The representatives, in addition, can do deals on our behalf and express partly our varying feelings on issues.

Yes, and polling does a lot of the work before election day anyway.

Michael, polls have nothing to do with the pointlessness of your individual vote. I am not saying that one person is insignificant in the world. I am saying that one vote is insignificant in an election.

Voting on bills, such as the US does, is more akin to true democracy, as the people have a more intimate say in policy.

The weakness of democracy applies as much to the US as to Canada.

Is it not plausible to say that Corporations must be brought under transnational control in this era of Globalisation?

Corporations are now under proper control (that the Left says otherwise depresses me to no end). When most people buy products from Walmart, work for Walmart or buy Walmart shares, they research, investigate and check what it is they are doing. Why? Because each individual benefits directly from making a good choice. "Sears offers better working conditions." "Canadian Tire has it cheaper."

Now, compare that to the election of a (transnational) government. One of my neigbours told me he paid $7,000 in federal taxes last year. He doesn't know the name of our deputy and he didn't vote in the last election.

Of course, my neighbour benefits from federal government expenditures. But those benefits are not contingent in any way on his individual vote. His benefits at Walmart on the other hand are directly contingent on his purchase choice.

The last period of Globalisation a century ago led us to excesses in the Capitalist system like those we see today.

One consequence of that was the Great Depression and the revival of Nationalism and protectionism.

The last period of Globalization ended in August 1914 and the outbreak of World War I.

The calm, tranquillity, stability and economic development of the 19th century gave us the basic scientific discoveries for all the technology we have in the 20th century.

I'll stand corrected but it seems that since the 1920s, there has not been any great insights in physics on a par with the Michelson-Morley experiments, Einstein or Planck. Electricity, radio transmissions, radiation were all ideas of the 19th century. (OK, the double helix arrived in the 20th...)

As to the Great Depression, I think most would now agree that the US Fed really, really bungled in the early 1930s. The international evidence shows clearly that economies improved when their countries left the gold standard (and stopped imitating the foolish policies of the US Fed at the time).

The Fed wasn't the only bungler before the Great Depression. The securities industry was a disaster waiting to happen. One big inside baseball game.

But you know, we continue to bail out the too big too fail guys and we probably always will.

[August1991]

Voting on bills, such as the US does, is more akin to true democracy, as the people have a more intimate say in policy.

The weakness of democracy applies as much to the US as to Canada.

I am not sure you are getting what I am saying. Certain states in the US have voted on bill such as the decriminilization of Marijuana, (Alaska and California, for example) and the death penalty (Florida and Texas, for example). I am not sure how this is an example of the 'weakness of democracy'.

I also do not understand how the rest of your post applies to voting, unless you are one of those ultra-right wingers who believes in the abolishment of the gov't in favour of 'responsible anarchy'.

Dear Thelonious Monk,

The vote of one individual (you, for example) has never decided the result in any riding in any election in Canada. IOW, the single vote of an individual (such as you) will not decide anything.

In the case of a State-Wide referendum, this notion should be more obvious.

There is a symbolism to voting, and then there is the reality.

Eureka: One thing that you might consider in downplaying the importance of a single vote is that it is estimated that, in normal times, only about 4% of the electorate is a "swing" vote.

Elections are all about winning over that 4%. That may not be an individual vote but it enhances the importance of each vote.

True, politicians "fight" over the opinion of the "middle" voters. But middle voters (the 4%) are different people depending on the issue. Consider this US election. Abortion, Iraq war, gay marriage, tax cuts, future economy; you'll find different people (a dfifferent 4%) hesitating.

I don't mean to ignore swing votes or downplay a single vote. I simply mean to say that one person's vote will change absoilutely nothing. That is a mathematical fact.

Thelonius Monk: One must assume, if one believes in only "Cogito ergo sum', that one's vote is also the only one.

Stop dreaming. You are not a benevolent dictator. Your vote will not decide the fate of humanity. It's just a vote.

Small things make up big things. One may say that the individual vote is inconsequential, but this is not true. Try casting your vote for the Marxist-Leninist party next time. What if the majority did the same? It would be your last vote for a while.

Others won't do the same, and the M-L candidate won't win.

An individual is not inconsequential. But a democratic election does not allow an individual to express a view accurately.

"Small things make up big things." How?

[Guest eureka]

In the US, as an example, the great majority of people will vote either Republican or Democrat regardless of issues. The swing factor covers all those who have issues. It has been measured though I cannot give you any reference. The 4% is comprised of all the uncertainties.

Times like the present may present a somewhat wider swing with the "great" issues of terrorism and war, but not much higher.

I wonder about transnational controls on transnational corporations. It does not necessitate transnational governments but transnational cooperation and a role for international law.

If corporations can operate with impunity in many jurisdictions, then, in my view, it is reasonable that there be institutional controls to compensate for the inability of the home national government to follow them. Globalisation did not end in 1914, though its operations were somewhat constrained for some countries. Corporate interests were al encompassing in many areas of the world supported by the powers.

One example of today of a serious need is the international shipping industry. Martin has been pilloried by the opposition parties for having foreign registration and crews for the international part of CSL. Yet, he could do no else. The world's shipping lines all operate that way taking advantage of jurisdictions that allow them to violate standards of most of the world. Not until there is a transnational deal can that be brought under control.

[August1991]

I also do not understand how the rest of your post applies to voting, unless you are one of those ultra-right wingers who believes in the abolishment of the gov't in favour of 'responsible anarchy'.

Thelonius Monk, I am not one of those.

IMV, the government, like the free market, a happy family or a well-run business, can be a source of good.

[Black Dog]

Worse than Vietnam?

'Bring them on!" President Bush challenged the early Iraqi insurgency in July of last year. Since then, 812 American soldiers have been killed and 6,290 wounded, according to the Pentagon. Almost every day, in campaign speeches, Bush speaks with bravado about how he is "winning" in Iraq. "Our strategy is succeeding," he boasted to the National Guard convention on Tuesday.

But, according to the US military's leading strategists and prominent retired generals, Bush's war is already lost. Retired general William Odom, former head of the National Security Agency, told me: "Bush hasn't found the WMD. Al-Qaida, it's worse, he's lost on that front. That he's going to achieve a democracy there? That goal is lost, too. It's lost." He adds: "Right now, the course we're on, we're achieving Bin Laden's ends."

General Odom said: "This is far graver than Vietnam. There wasn't as much at stake strategically, though in both cases we mindlessly went ahead with the war that was not constructive for US aims. But now we're in a region far more volatile, and we're in much worse shape with our allies."

General Odom remarked that the tension between the Bush administration and the senior military officers over Iraqi was worse than any he has ever seen with any previous government, including Vietnam. "I've never seen it so bad between the office of the secretary of defence and the military. There's a significant majority believing this is a disaster. The two parties whose interests have been advanced have been the Iranians and al-Qaida. Bin Laden could argue with some cogency that our going into Iraq was the equivalent of the Germans in Stalingrad. They defeated themselves by pouring more in there. Tragic."

[Hugo]

I'm just going to pick up some points from various sources here.

Really? What is Europe?

I'll tell you what it isn't: a homogenous nation-state.

This [mob rule] is partly corrected by having explicit rights protecting individuals or minorities against the will of the majority.

The problem is that the government - the mob - sets these very rights. What men give, they can take away, and there are countless instances where a democracy has violated the rights of its minority subjects - sorry, citizens - in horrible ways.

Is it not plausible to say that Corporations must be brought under transnational control in this era of Globalisation?

It depends what that control is going to be. If you pick some kind of government, be aware that government created all the problems with globalisation and corporate power in the first place, by artifically making the stock-corporation the best method of collectivisation, by meddling with and monopolising the money supply, by making itself vulnerable to lobbying and so forth.

What most leftists propose is that government fix what government broke by trying to fix something else, which it broke by trying to fix something else again, and so forth.

On the contrary, democracy is good in practice but bad in principle.

I'd say it's bad in practice and bad in principle. In practice, we have 77% of the Canadian electorate chafing under a government they never voted for. In principle, democracy says that the majority should get to boss the minority around and tell them what to do.

I'll stand corrected but it seems that since the 1920s, there has not been any great insights in physics on a par with the Michelson-Morley experiments, Einstein or Planck. Electricity, radio transmissions, radiation were all ideas of the 19th century.

There has been nuclear power, the laser, the transistor, and so forth.

It's an interesting premise but I think that the 19th Century was a period where individualism briefly outstripped totalitarianism, resulting in a huge increase in wealth, living standards, scientific advances, and so forth. Then, in the 20th Century, totalitarianism started to catch up again. So, we're back to statism and war again.

The vote of one individual (you, for example) has never decided the result in any riding in any election in Canada.

And if it ever did, you can be assured it would be referred to the courts, a recount or a second vote before that lone vote was ever allowed to decide anything.

IMV, the government, like the free market, a happy family or a well-run business, can be a source of good.

Explain how.

[Guest eureka]

There was no totalitarianism for inividualism to outstrip begore the 19th century. Despotic power, which there had been meny examples of, is not the same thing as totalitarianism.

The individualism of the 19th. Century also did not lead to huge increases in wealth. It lead to the concentration of wealth and to falling living standards for most of the world. Just as the Globalisation of today is doing. The stock corporation is not at all a vehicle for collectivation. Rather, it is somewhat opposed to that in that it leads to accumulation of wealth in ever fewer hands.

Individualism without adequate checks - as is the case when some individuals have banded together to extend their personal interests above others - something that cannot be maintained under so-called anarchism, is the bane of human existence. It recalls the Enclosures and Goldsmith's "Deserted Village" only now, peoples are losing more than their plot of land.

"Ill fares the land,

to hastening ills a prey;

where wealth accumulates,

and men decay.

That is the road of extreme individualism.

You have a very strange view of democracy when you say that, in principle the majority get to boss the minority That is the democracy that Plato railed against and that has, in reality, never been seen and not in a comparable sense for thousands of years. Humanity has made consderable progress since those barbaric days (except in Quebec). We now consider democracy to be something where no group "bosses" any other group other than the people "bossing" politicians.

The essence of democracy is the equal protection of minorities. Consider this definition of democracy:

A society is made up of shifitng majorities. There are majorities for one thing or another and any one person may be a member of different majorities and minorities at the same time. In politics, today's majority may be tomorrow's monority. On a de,ocratic society with adequate rules of law, the temporary majority will not trample a minority for fear of the role reversal.

[Hugo]

There was no totalitarianism for inividualism to outstrip begore the 19th century.

Really? Before the 19th Century there were no democracies. What else, besides totalitarianism, was there?

The individualism of the 19th. Century also did not lead to huge increases in wealth.

Wrong.

We now consider democracy to be something where no group "bosses" any other group other than the people "bossing" politicians.

Except those who don't want socialised medicine and pay for it anyway, those who are pro-life and are forced to pay for others' abortions anyway, those who want to smoke marijuana and are banned by majority consensus, and so it goes on.

In politics, today's majority may be tomorrow's monority.

And it might not. You are basing your political opinions upon what you would like to be true, rather than what is true. Blacks were a minority in the USA two hundred years ago. They are minority today. They will still be a minority in a century.

Now, after having several debates with you and witnessing your debates with others I see the usual pattern emerging. You have no facts, no evidence, no citations, completely incorrect and ignorant theories and a dearth of logical argument. You have lost every debate you engaged in with me, so let's not waste any more time and say you lost this one too. Anybody who knows how to debate properly is welcome to take this up. Unless Eureka gets his act together, I plan on ignoring any further posts from him since they are mere trolling.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Really? Before the 19th Century there were no democracies. What else, besides totalitarianism, was there?

Rome was democratic. Senators, while appointed, had to have previously held (I think) 4 elected posts before being considered for appointment to the senate.

Then there's the Monarchy system, totalitarian, to be sure, but also a wealth distribution system in it's own right. (Mostly by nepotism, mind you)

Blacks were a minority in the USA two hundred years ago. They are minority today. They will still be a minority in a century.

It depends on what you consider a 'minority'. Birth rates are often much higher amongst 'minorities'. The 'white middle class' has cut their baby production considerably over the last 2 decades. Moreso now than ever, both parents work, and value material goods over large families.

[Hugo]

Rome was democratic.

I strongly disagree. Women and slaves couldn't vote. They also wrangled the electoral system using the institition of patronage so that the plebs couldn't actually elect any of their own, but rather decided which wealthy former general's boots they'd get to lick in a given year.

It depends on what you consider a 'minority'. Birth rates are often much higher amongst 'minorities'.

It does not matter. There are always going to be minorities, by definition wherever there is a majority in populace, thought or deed, there will be a minority. The minority, in democracy, has rights that are only preserved by the goodwill of the majority, rights that are frequently trampled, even today. The problem is that many see "minorities" as racial or religious groups, but in truth a minority is also a group that doesn't agree with the consensus, like the drug-legalisation lobby.

Right now, the Canadian government violates the right of its citizens to private property, and renders many people modern sonderkommando by forcing them to support institutions they are strongly opposed to under threat of violence. Pro-lifers are forced to pay for abortions, homeschooling parents are forced to pay for public schools, and drug-legalisation activists are forced to fund the War on Drugs, for instance.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Right now, the Canadian government violates the right of its citizens to private property, and renders many people modern sonderkommando by forcing them to support institutions they are strongly opposed to under threat of violence.

Any gov't, nay society, must, in order to prevent anarchy, violate some rights. (Perhaps curtail may be more correct than violate, because the latter implies willful, random malicious intent.)

They also wrangled the electoral system using the institition of patronage so that the plebs couldn't actually elect any of their own, but rather decided which wealthy former general's boots they'd get to lick in a given year.

If you take out 'General's' and insert 'Lawyer's", it sounds just like Canada!

Pro-lifers are forced to pay for abortions, homeschooling parents are forced to pay for public schools, and drug-legalisation activists are forced to fund the War on Drugs, for instance.

Here you are correct, about the only 'choice' we are given is "Do you support Public or Separate Schools?" at census time. However, it could be argued that the instances you cite are a case of your tax dollars subsidizing the right to choose, of individual freedoms available to all.

[Hugo]

Any gov't, nay society, must, in order to prevent anarchy, violate some rights.

The tyrant's excuse. If you have to violate basic human rights to do something, what you are doing is misguided and almost certainly evil.

Here you are correct, about the only 'choice' we are given is "Do you support Public or Separate Schools?" at census time. However, it could be argued that the instances you cite are a case of your tax dollars subsidizing the right to choose, of individual freedoms available to all.

But it isn't subsidizing the right to choose, because the individual does not have that right. I just showed you how many people who disagree with certain institutions are forbidden by threat of violence and death from withdrawing from those institutions.

I think that because you use terminology like "it could be argued that..." you don't agree with what you're saying on a fundamental level, that the taxation/coersion system is profoundly and intrinsically unjust.

If you take out 'General's' and insert 'Lawyer's", it sounds just like Canada!

Very true. Or America, or replace "General" with "KGB Director" and you've got Russia.