In the real world people do not radically change their societies overnight, and when theyballot box.jpg have no
concept of how to live in a free society, change becomes impossible until the entire world view of a sufficient portion of the population changes.
The issues facing the United States in Iraq and the rest of western Asia are probably more complicated that many of us would like to believe. It is not simply a matter of whether to intervene or when to pull out. It is more a matter of what we intend to accomplish, and how we go about doing it. Democratically ruled nations, regardless of the exact form of government are difficult entities to create, and in some respects even more difficult to manage, making the US’ actions in Iraq and Afghanistan experiments, which will need to be monitored closely over the next several decades, if not longer.
Some light on the situation may well be shed by the recent events in the People’s Republic of China, which has been under authoritarian rule for some of time. Now, it is experimenting with freeing up its economy, and is experiencing some political question marks over how the process will occur without creating a chaotic result. China wants to avoid a situation similar to that in present day Russia where there may be a democratic constitution with elections, but the whether the result is truly any sort of democracy is questionable. Vietnam, I am informed is also facing similar issues.
One very important recent event was China’s requirement that Google accept censorship of its search engine before it was allowed access to the Chinese Internet. The Beijing government is taking the slow road. It may be slower than we like, here, but it is more likely to succeed in the long run because the population as a whole gradually becomes accustomed to the changes in society. Culture shock, is avoided, change can be orderly, and more likely to be successful, as long as the leadership is committed to it. Critics may assert that this is simply another manifestation of Chinese authoritarianism. It is more likely that China’s leadership desires their nation to become a major industrial power, which an authoritarian system would prevent. The pragmatic approach recognizes that economic power requires a free economy and a free economy requires an essentially free population. This will likely become the hidden agenda governing Beijing very soon, if it has not already.
Russia in its attempt to democratize rapidly ignored that its population had been living in an authoritarian system too long and was not ready to assume the duties and responsibilities of a self-governing people. There was, likewise, no commitment by the social or political leadership to maintain and support the democratic model and encourage it to percolate down through all levels of the Russian population. There was no commitment to “the rules of the game” as some political scientists have credited with the maintenance of democracy in the United States.
The prevailing Western wisdom, regarding Iraq and Afghanistan appears to be that following the right formula will cause all the pieces to fall into place like magic. First, create a written constitution; second, hold elections. Third, when the elections result in a government, back out and the new government will take over with no problems. Presto; instant democracy and a peaceful, free society. In the real world people do not change their society that radically overnight, and when they have no concept of how to live in a free society the task becomes impossible until the entire world view of a sufficient portion of the population changes.
Iraq and Afghanistan were run by authoritarian systems. Iraq’s was centralized, while Afghanistan’s was regionalized. Both societies maintained cultural institutions that sought to eliminate diversity of belief, opinion and practice. Today’s Iraq, despite its new constitution and elections, is in the grip of essentially three different groups each of which wants to eliminate the other two from power, or as an alternative, wants a nation of their own, governed according to their specific terms. Violence used to promote either of these positions is a constant concern.
Democratic societies are different by nature, and by necessity. Instead of attempting to eliminate differences of opinion and belief, such societies work out their differences and arrive at a compromise that will be reasonably satisfactory to all sides. Further, the commitment by leadership to that sort of system keeps it functioning. Consider, for example when the British lords forced King John to sign the Magna Carta. This was the first major step in building the British democracy. The lords could have simply killed John and engaged in a battle to determine who would take his place. The result would have been a delay in building a national identity, because the leadership was less interested in the collective good, and more interested in self-promotion. Democracy would likewise have been delayed.
Another example of where problems of this sort exist is Africa. Professor Bernard Lugan has written significantly on this problem where tribal and family loyalties have impeded nationalism, and made it extremely difficult for democratic governments to exist, let alone achieve success.* A large part of the African problem stems from each cultural group using political advantages to suppress or gain power over others. Their interest is not the nation but their own ethnic or tribal group. The same problem exists today in Iraq. And of couse, the English didn’t always solve their internal difficulties diplomatically, as the War of the Roses proved.
The current plan for coalition troops to leave Iraq once a government is seated is based on the false premise that such government will in fact be effective. It is more likely that we will see a government attempting to control rival groups, possibly dissolving into a chaotic state or succumbing to the control of whichever has the most power. Saddam Hussein’s rule was marked by his killing anyone who got in his way. Today the killing goes on. It is not institutionalized into government, but it is a continuation of the same practice, none-the-less. Inserting a new government will not change the attitudes of those who see violence as the best political tool.
There are “moderates” in Iraq, who have seen how democratic societies are supposed to function, and are committed to such a road. Unfortunately, they lack sufficient power, in the short term, to create the social change needed for success. A large portion of the population would rather live in an authoritarian system than in a free society because they understand the former. That is why we are seeing the pro-authoritarian election results in Egypt, Iran and the Palestinian Authority regions. Until the social attitude changes, elections will be futile and democracy will elect dictatorial regimes even as it did in Germany back in 1933.
*See, especially: African Legacy – Solutions For a Community in Crisis, published in 2003 by Carnot Books.
The typical U.S. denizen is little more aware of what it takes to run a democracy either. Yet, we maintain a democratically elected government that functions much as it was designed to, and a stable population who generally support the frequent and peaceful regime changes it takes to give it legitimacy. In any given population, only a few really pay much attention to how this works or why it works. No one knows what it takes to bring one into being, yet we have many times exported our concepts of freedom, democracy and republic; and twice successfully imposed them on autocratic societies none thought possible (i.e., Germany and Japan).
In the early days, we didn’t even have to try because the world was screaming to have something better than absolutist rule over them. France revolted hard on the heels of our own revolution and was incited by our example. Spain’s colonies revolted from both Spain and France. English colonies demanded and were granted greater autonomy that gradually translated in full independence. How many countries today bear the designation ‘republic’ or operate under a fixed constitution. Not all of them quite fit our description of a democratically elected republic, but that is not the point. All hold the concept of autocratic rule in disrepute and, at the minimum, pretend to something democratic and a “rule of law, not men”. Even Iraq and Afghanistan had elections and constitutions to lend them legitimacy.
What this shows, is that the people of these regions are not altogether ignorant of the distinctions. In fact, it is probably accurate to say they take the distinctions more to heart and comprehend them better than many Americans who enjoy them without giving them a second thought.
Yet, you are right that there is more to transplanting a functioning system in the soil of an Iraq, Afghanistan, or China. The problem is not that the people are not ready for it, the problem is they are up against some determined people who are jealously resistant to it. The culture of hate and suspicion is deeply rooted in them. Their traditional leaders, the imams, are against any form of government that does not impose Sharia and does not commit every citizen to their will. Islam is, arguably, the least democratic of religions. The term ‘Islam’ means submission. Sharia is crafted around the concept of submission to Allah and to his prophet Mohammed. Freedom is the antithesis of Islam, and this is the real crux of the matter. It explains the difference between transplanting democracy to a Muslim region versus just about anywhere else. It also partly explains fundamentalist Islamic antipathy toward all Western democracies.
Communism too is resistant to real democracy, but it differs from Islam in that it makes pretense of representing a ‘democratic’ institution to its people. In fact, it pretends to be more democratic than the democracies of the West. Thus, the transition is a less one of implementation as of reconciling terms.
When we revolted from England, it was because a) England’s ability to sustain its rule was weak, b) France sided against England, and c) because our objectives were consistent with English practice. When France and the Spanish colonies next revolted, the autocrats fell because our revolution made theirs possible. When colony after colony thereafter succeeded in attaining self-rule, it was because the idea of democratic self-rule was held in great esteem and autocratic rule in disgrace. France’s revolt succeeded, but the initial result was far from democratic or free. It took them several tries to become a free republic with a stable government the people accepted. This has been just as true of the former Spanish colonies to our south, which sometimes reverts to autocratic rule. Yet, the goal of freedom persists, and none of those people are resigned to live forever under despots.
The problem is not ours to spread freedom; it is the despot’s problem to kill it. Freedom is so indelibly part of human self-perception that it takes the artifice of a perverse religion or ideology to supplant it. For generations, Iraqis and Afghans have been caught between the desire for Western style freedom and a religion that detests it.
We did not seek war with the terrorists or with Islam, but they have made common cause against us and seek to destroy what they cannot accommodate. There was no choice for us but to take the war back to them. Having cleaned out two nests of these vipers, we now have the problem of what to do with the people we’ve liberated. If we simply walk away, we can be sure the vipers will return and re-subjugate them. If we stay and impose an autocratic rule that does not permit them to choose, then we are little different from those we ousted. So, we tread the only course that makes sense. We stay and try to nurture a culture change so profound that the vipers will find no room for them. This may be unrealistic, but I have faith that the people we have liberated want this change and want us to stay as long as it takes. We cannot impose such a change from afar. The people of those countries alone can do that. But, we can provide them with the only opportunity they are likely to get.
As with the problem of reconciling democracy and Islam in places like Afghanistan, there is the problem of Muslim immigration here and in Europe. Many Muslim immigrants genuinely come to the West looking for our style of freedom, but many also come demanding a separate treatment under Sharia. Most aren’t directly involved in terrorism, yet they have similar objectives and lend support. Some have escaped secularist regimes bent on stamping out their particular variety of fanaticism. They come here because we make an extreme habit of tolerating ideologies that are anathema to our own freedom, not because we share common values but because we are blind to the difference. Others come who are avowed communists chaffing under theocratic regimes and claiming asylum from them. None of these latter groups is a friend of democracy, and are highly resistant to assimilation. All four groups share the common identity of ‘Muslim’, and, together, defy any simple categorization.
Part of the problem we are having is identifying who is mainstream Muslim and who is the true radical. Moderate Muslims (and they are moderates) maintain theirs is the true religion, whereas the fundamentalists represent a radicalization of Islam. Both history and Koranic text refute this assertion. What they now regard as “mainstream” is of recent vintage, limited acceptance, and represents a broad assimilation of liberal Western ideas. Historic Islam is intolerant, aggressive, and submissive. Moderate Muslims don’t want to be considered intolerant because of their association, and I must sympathize with them. But, I also can’t let that fool me into mistaking real Islam for a “religion of peace”. Because of this tension, we can’t correctly assign the more aggressive and intolerant aspects of Islamic fundamentalism to their source (the Koran) without also tainting and offending moderate Muslims. If we are to get past this problem, it is moderate Muslims who must recognize that their practice represents a divergent religion from Islam (just as Protestantism once diverged from Catholicism). Islam is dividing, but few Muslims want to acknowledge it; and, because they won’t, they expose us to terrorists lurking among them.
Both of these problems must be resolved if we are to re-establish an acceptable balance. Containing so called radical-Islam as we once contained communism will not work because Muslims have already permeated our society too far. Expelling them does not work without also consigning decent Muslims to the same fate. In any case, it is not our way and would a be victory for despotic rule.