Democracy 101
Unsurprisingly, the deadlocked Iraqi Assembly has voted itself more time to sort out issues around the new Constitution, rather than blow the deadline set for today and throw the whole process back to the voters. I guess the US spin on this is, at least they’re talking rather than killing each other wholesale. And hey, the Constitutional process is working, even if it isn’t producing a Constitution.
These claims would be more convincing if it weren’t for the specific issue that’s holding up the delegates. No, not Kurdish autonomy – that’s actually something that can be negotiated, as Indonesia just did with its dissident province in Aceh. As long-standing as the Kurdish problem is in Mesopotamia, it’s still basically a political problem of laws, flags and borders. With the right application of power and money, even Turkey can eventually be made to accept the result.
No, the real sticking point here is the role of Islamic law in the new Iraq. Which is to say, the question is, will Iraq be a real democracy or a theocracy with occasional elections, like its neighbor Iran?
Call me old fashioned, but the way I understand it, you can’t have a democracy that’s not also a secular state. The reason for this is pretty simple. Democracy, unlike religion, is radically open to the idea that unorthodox approaches are worth discussing. In democracy, people, not God (or the people who claim to speak for him), have the final say on how to run society here on earth.
To believe in democracy, you have to believe in the ability of individual humans to make moral decisions. You have to trust them to weigh arguments presented by people with different goals and different interests and come up with the best solutions. It’s a process that often requires people to listen to things that challenge their beliefs and compromise to achieve results. Voting, therefore, isn’t just a political activity to choose leaders. It’s the manifestation of the democratic belief in people as moral agents, not just servants to religious orthodoxy.
If, on the other hand, you sincerely believe that your view of society is ordained by God, there’s no room for compromise, and no need to entertain dissenting views. Compromise, to a religious fanatic, is an admission that God may have only been half right, which is of course inconceivable. If it’s true that God is God and right is right, then everyone who disagrees and needs to shut up or be punished. No need to vote: God doesn’t decide what’s true based on popularity contests.
Democracy need not be hostile to religious practice. True democracy recognizes that issues of morals and conscience must be decided by individuals, because only individuals know their own mind. Communities of believers in democratic societies can try to enforce their beliefs among their own members if they want, but they have to do so within a general framework of civil rights, and individuals should always be at liberty to disaffiliate from groups they disagree with without penalty.
What that means is that religions in a democracy have to work harder at persuasion. They can’t rely on the state to enforce affiliation and compliance on non-believers, and they can’t count on believers obeying weird or preposterous teachings for fear of criminal punishment. Ironically, this often makes religion as an institution stronger in democratic societies.
But try telling that to the fanatic. They don’t want the trouble of having to sell the ideology of primitive Bronze Age societies to people in the modern world. They’d prefer to just use the legal powers of the state to close down debate, sweep away troublesome issues and individuals, and perpetuate the rigid and predictable social order. It’s simpler that way, and simplicity matters above all things to the religious fanatic.
All of this is basic political theory, known to the West for centuries and the subject of beautifully-argued philosophical works by thinkers recognized as the founders of our civilization. Among other things, it’s a philosophy enshrined in the American Constitution.
One school of thought says that we ought to allow our friends in the Middle East to learn this lesson themselves, because it will stick better that way. But that train has already left the station. The prestige of the United States, such as it remains, is tied to the establishment of a democratic government in Iraq. So too are our legitimate geopolitical and economic interests in the region. And make no mistake: the supremacy of secular law is fundamental to the meaning of “democracy.” An Islamist government with popular support and occasional elections will eventually prove to be as menacing to American interests as Saddam ever was. Just look at Iran – but at least we’re not responsible for that government.
All of this puts Bush and his neocon buddies in a terrible jam. Surely they understand what a catastrophe it would be if it turns out American soldiers died to help establish the Islamic Republic of Iraq. Unfortunately, however, they can’t cheer too loud for the merits of secular democracy in Iraq without sounding like they might also favor secular democracy in America. And God forbid anyone would think that was a good idea!
2:24:29 PM 
|
