A true democracy

[HS Thomas]

Can a nation as divided and traditional as Iraq never become a true democracy ?
Would the US have to stay as long as the colonial British did in India to
nurture a non-partisan civil service , political parties devoted to non violent transfer of power and an independent judiciary ? Decades of tyranny under Saddam Hussein have crushed these institutions.
I am not sure how far this is true but the Indian National Congress was apparently a British-founded political Party , The African National Congress is roughly based on Mandela's Gandhian ideals.
Are there any bets from those who have kept in touch with events, on a likely Iraqi National Congress party ? Or an Iraqi Democratic Party ?
When the British left India they also left behind a British trained Indian army and police force , a non-partisan civil service , an independent judiciary and a free press.
Who can argue that India is not a democracy ! Like India, Iraq has a well-educated middle class capable of running the nation. I wouldn't like to draw too many parallels, though.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by HS Thomas:
Can a nation as divided and traditional as Iraq never become a true democracy ?

I think when people get sick of violence, when people get sick of seeing their children blown up, then there will be a peaceful democracy. As long as hate of others is more important to you than love of your nation then there will be violence. I would like to point out that a large portion of those who are committing the violence in Iraq are not Iraqis.

[Vinod John]

Originally posted by HS Thomas:
Can a nation as divided and traditional as Iraq never become a true democracy ?
Would the US have to stay as long as the colonial British did in India to
nurture a non-partisan civil service , political parties devoted to non violent transfer of power and an independent judiciary ? Decades of tyranny under Saddam Hussein have crushed these institutions.
I am not sure how far this is true but the Indian National Congress was apparently a British-founded political Party , The African National Congress is roughly based on Mandela's Gandhian ideals.
Are there any bets from those who have kept in touch with events, on a likely Iraqi National Congress party ? Or an Iraqi Democratic Party ?
When the British left India they also left behind a British trained Indian army and police force , a non-partisan civil service , an independent judiciary and a free press.
Who can argue that India is not a democracy ! Like India, Iraq has a well-educated middle class capable of running the nation. I wouldn't like to draw too many parallels, though.

What are you kidding ? I heard people saying "Brits are still suprised India is still in one piece", now I think it is true ... Do you think before the British annexed Indians where barbarians ?. What British did is redefined Indian political structure in their own terms and that would suit them. You need to understand something Indian police and army had to be maintained not just to police India but to server British interest all around the worlds and to fight under British flag in WW I & II (remember there where over a million Indians fought in Europe, North Africa and Asia in both the wars).Think twice before making an example out of colonial British.
Comming to Iraq, the divide isn't too much compared to most big nation, but secular democracy won't work there, because the predominant religion (Islam) doen't provide provisions for that. For now it is better of to have a islamic state, rather than a fragile demoracy and hope things would change for the better in future.

[Frank Silbermann]

The trouble with creating an Islamic state is that it will be difficult to get the Shiites, the Kurds (also Shiite?) and the Sunnis to agree on what is Islam. Therefore, if the Sunni Baathists are determined to drive American out right away, maybe the best thing would be for America to disarm them and then leave. If the Kurds and Shiites do to the Baathists what the Lebanese did to two Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon, well, they asked for it.

[HS Thomas]

Originally posted by Vinod John:

You need to understand something Indian police and army had to be maintained not just to police India but to server British interest all around the worlds and to fight under British flag in WW I & II (remember there where over a million Indians fought in Europe, North Africa and Asia in both the wars).Think twice before making an example out of colonial British.

Thanks for pointing this out. I am sorry I glossed over these.My point was that India achieved a relatively true democracy (the biggest democracy in the world ) which is a credit to post-colonial India for taking up on the legacy that the Colonial British unwittingly left behind - the judiciary , free press institutions, well-trained Indian army.
These institutions acted as a shock absorber whenever India became embroiled in ethnic and religious conflicts.
For sure the Colonial Brits set up these institutions in order to better govern their interest in the sub-continent, not out of any altruism.
Comming to Iraq, the divide isn't too much compared to most big nation, but secular democracy won't work there, because the predominant religion (Islam) doen't provide provisions for that. For now it is better of to have a islamic state, rather than a fragile demoracy and hope things would change for the better in future.
You seem to suggest that Islam and democracy don't co-exist.
The problem would seem to be that there are few inspiring Islamic world leaders.There are many inspiring Islamic people round the world but few seem to end up in politics. (apart from Imran Khan).
Thomas Paul :I would like to point out that a large portion of those who are committing the violence in Iraq are not Iraqis.
Who are committing violence ? A cycle of violence, perhaps.
An eye for an eye ? Afghanis, terrorists ?
[ December 09, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]

[Al Newman]

Originally posted by Vinod John:

I heard people saying "Brits are still suprised India is still in one piece", now I think it is true ... Do you think before the British annexed Indians where barbarians ?.

British India isn't in one piece, is it? Comtaining as it did Pakistan and Bangladesh as well as modern-day India. Before the British India probably contained as wide a range of peoples in various conditions as existed on earth. Ranging from true barbarians to post-decadent principalities.

Originally posted by Vinod John:

Comming to Iraq, the divide isn't too much compared to most big nation, but secular democracy won't work there, because the predominant religion (Islam) doen't provide provisions for that.

I've heard the argument that Islam doesn't provide for it. I don't agree. In it's forms Islam seems to be the most democratic of religions (along with Judaism). Far more so than Catholicism or Hinduism, seems to me. The rigid heirarchy of Catholicism and the caste system of Hinduism seem FAR less compatible with democracy than the meritocratic organization of Islam's heirarchies (such as they are).
For many years similar arguments were made that catholic countries were fundamentally incompatable with democracy - until thriving enduring democracies rose in both cultures.
It's the same argument with Islam, that since Islam hasn't seen many democracies it is fundamentally incompatible with democracy. That's rot, as Indonesia may even now be proving. All it means is that democracy hasn't happened there yet, not that it will not....

[Vinod John]

Originally posted by HS Thomas:

You seem to suggest that Islam and democracy don't co-exist.

Atleast for now "Yes", the world had shriked consideriably after the end of cold war, the concept of free trade has considerably changed the polictical and economic situation in most countries both in positive and negative terms, islamic nations are now under virtual pressure to join this mainstream which could make considerable change in thier local political structure and belief which most old and (thought to be) wise "leaders" are reluctant to accept. My opinion it is better to play a waiting game and than force some thing on them.
Even if you consider a relatively peaceful (internally) nation like Saudi Arabia, there is too much oppression and the good portion of current generation accept it with out any displeasure, so only thing world can do is silently show or preach them what is democracy and let them choose what is best for them.

[HS Thomas]

Originally posted by Alfred Neumann:

I've heard the argument that Islam doesn't provide for it. I don't agree. In it's forms Islam seems to be the most democratic of religions (along with Judaism). Far more so than Catholicism or Hinduism, seems to me. The rigid heirarchy of Catholicism and the caste system of Hinduism seem FAR less compatible with democracy than the meritocratic organization of Islam's heirarchies (such as they are).

By this reasoning Iraq has the potential to become even more democratic than Italy or India, the most catholic and hindu nations. Very interesting!
It seems odd that there are no Islamic countries that can be described as truly democratic,though.

[Paul McKenna]

Originally posted by Alfred Neumann:
Far more so than Catholicism or Hinduism, seems to me. The rigid heirarchy of Catholicism and the caste system of Hinduism seem FAR less compatible with democracy than the meritocratic organization of Islam's heirarchies

Ok! time out! Let me clear up a few things for you Alfred.
1. Casteism is NOT a part of Hinduism. It was a system of segregation practised by upper class Hindus just as much as racism was practised by whites of North America.
2. To have a FUNCTIONING stable democracy you must be willing to accept diverse opinions. Islam has proven to be inherently incapable of tolerating diversity. Now this is not to say that MUSLIMS (not Islam) cannot have a democratic government. They can, but to do so they must ignore certain basic tenets of their religion.

[Vinod John]

Originally posted by Alfred Neumann:

British India isn't in one piece, is it? Comtaining as it did Pakistan and Bangladesh as well as modern-day India. Before the British India probably contained as wide a range of peoples in various conditions as existed on earth. Ranging from true barbarians to post-decadent principalities.

The old Hindustan (now India) always consisted of Pakistan, East Afganistan, Bangladesh and all of North India. But for a brief period after the Mughal rule the whole regions was in chaos and there was infiting between states. For the first time in early 20th century Bangladesh was divided from India citing governing reason (but the real is reason is obviously to divide people and rule). So it suprises me when some one points out British united India into one country.

Originally posted by Alfred Neumann:

I've heard the argument that Islam doesn't provide for it. I don't agree. In it's forms Islam seems to be the most democratic of religions (along with Judaism). Far more so than Catholicism or Hinduism, seems to me. The rigid heirarchy of Catholicism and the caste system of Hinduism seem FAR less compatible with democracy than the meritocratic organization of Islam's heirarchies (such as they are).

Though Hinduism is less of a religion and more of a best pratice guide on how to live, unlike Islam or christanity, Hinduism dosen't set any specific rigid boundries on people belief and there is always an alternate guide book under print, which actually made it easy to bend it and give way to lot of other religions and ideas.
"Demoracy" always worked in countries like India, because the government is totally seperated from the religion (hey we have national holidays for Christmas, Ramzan, Diwali no one is left out ), but seperating state from religion near impossible in Islamic country like Iraq or Pakistan or Iran.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by HS Thomas:
Who are committing violence ?

Predominantly Baathists, religious extremists, and foreigners from various Arab and Muslim nations who have made it across the borders. None of those groups are particularly interested in the welfare of the Iraqi people.

[Frank Silbermann]

Alfred Neumann: "The rigid heirarchy of Catholicism and the caste system of Hinduism seem FAR less compatible with democracy than the meritocratic organization of Islam's heirarchies (such as they are).
For many years similar arguments were made that catholic countries were fundamentally incompatable with democracy - until thriving enduring democracies rose in both cultures."

On the other hand, neither France nor Italy could keep a democracy going for more than twenty years at a time until after WWII. Spain didn't have a Democracy until 30 years ago.
After WWII Europe had to choose between pleasing their American protectors or being overrun by the Soviet Union, so maybe they wanted to drop democracy but felt that it simply wasn't an option. Certainly, France's huge pro-communist Left couldn't have valued democracy very highly, back in the days before "Eurocommunism".
(I used to be annoyed when communists compared the Soviet Union's conquest of satellite countries in Easter Europe with America's "sphere of influence" in western Europe. But maybe they were right. Maybe Europeans didn't appreciate our concept of freedom but felt compelled to take it. Maybe that's why there's so much anti-Americanism there.)
And Catholocism is all but dead in Europe now. I mean, what percentage of the people in France, Southern Germany, and Italy still attend Mass regularly?

[Paul McKenna]

Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
....

Frank.. I've gotta say you come up with the most rational explanation for every darn topic here that you put a meaning into almost every meaningless discussion here.. spoil sport

[Jeroen Wenting]

True democracy does not exist anywhere in the world at the level of a nationstate.
Due to the nature of the process it's impossible to maintain as it would lead to inevitable deadlock on almost every decision that needs to be taken.
The ancient Greeks in Athens tried it and at the time it worked for a population of a few thousand, but even that was not true democracy in the strictest sense as not everyone was allowed to vote, only able bodied free men (not women) with an independent income. This of course excluded a large part of the population.
True democracy means that every decision needs to be voted on by every individual that that decision has an impact on.
This would mean that just about every government decision demands a referendum before it can be put into effect. This means that quick decisions (like those needed in times of crisis) become impossible to make.
The Romans noticed this and invented representative government with elected officials each representing his (of course, no women were allowed to hold office or vote) constituency. Even then they had a mechanism put into effect by which the senate could appoint a triumvirate to rule with absolute power if so appointed by the senate to speed up decisionmaking in times of crisis. As a safeguard they put in place a strict limit on the powers of such a triumvirate, including a maximum term of 3 years after which their powers would automatically end.

[Devesh H Rao]

Originally posted by HS Thomas:

Would the US have to stay as long as the colonial British did in India to
nurture a non-partisan civil service , political parties devoted to non violent transfer of power and an independent judiciary ? Decades of tyranny under Saddam Hussein have crushed these institutions.

No doubt the INC was founded by the british but it was nothing more than a club for the higher echelons of the Indian society and was not more than a breakfast & tea club. The mass support for it was never their in its initial phase to call it a political party per se.
M.K Gandhi changed all that as he was able to pull in mass support for the party and could get in people in the party who mattered. It was people like Gandhi, sardar patel, Nehru, abul kalam azad, and tilak[actually tilak was not part of the political stream but he was one of the people responsible for the free press movement in india and not the britisher.]and lots more of Indian leaders who gave a political structure to the party and it�s then where the democratic principles took root in India.
The british tried all the level best to sow seeds of hatred and succeeded to a level. No Indian can forget the game played by them in alienating a portion of muslim populace from the Indian mainstream by their divide and rule policy of supporting muslim league.
When the british left India they left behind civil services, police force a army no doubt but also a deep chasm between the people of united India which is bleeding till date.

Originally posted by HS Thomas:
Who can argue that India is not a democracy ! Like India, Iraq has a well-educated middle class capable of running the nation. I wouldn't like to draw too many parallels, though.

They would be able to do it if they are given a chance for it. The best way for it Is for the US to get their Occupation(sorry I just do not see it as a liberating force no matter what anybody says) forces out of iraq and let the people of iraq themselves decide. No doubt their can be riots and civil disorder but at the same time their could also be order. A leader has to arise from within the country to get democracy on track and not someone who is seen as being imposed from outside no matter however genuine anyone�s concern may be. India suffered one of the most brutal riots during partition but it could overcome the wounds and come up with a democratic tradition which sucks sometimes but at the same time is one of the most robust in the world today. The partition and riots could have been avoided if the britishers had left earlier before sowing the seeds of their divide and rule policy on similar lines democracy can blossom if given a chance in iraq.
I do not know much about Koran but from what I know it no where advocates a dictatorial regime. From what I know from my friend it is very much similar to the tenants of other religions which advocate rights across a broad spectrum of society which is the basic building block of democracy. So to say that Islam and democracy do not go together would not be doing justice to the tenants as religion is a set of rules while democracy is the implementation of the set of rules in a society. A religion cannot be blamed if the followers interpret the religion in a different way than intended as their always will be someone who will interpret the rules as was originally intended.
its like learning to differentiate between a religion and a person following the religion.

[ December 10, 2003: Message edited by: Devesh H Rao ]

[Joe King]

Probably the biggest barrier to democracy in Iraq will be bordering countries like Iran, trying to stir things up and create a new relgious based country to ally with. A good suggestion I saw somewhere would be a federal division of Iraq into several states, each one for each of the main divisions, e.g. the "Kurdish" state in the north etc. Probably would not be very diplomatic to call it the United States of Iraq, but along those lines. The problem with this would be to keep the states from drifting apart, but perhaps this solution could go some way to stopping the differenct parts of Iraq squabbling. Also not sure what Turkey would think about a Kurdish state....
Going back to India, at least it was a lot more seperate (culture wise) from the countries around it when it became independent, and also did so without a war wrecking a lot of the country. These reasons gave it a good chance. It will be a lot harder in Iraq.... we have to try, but its going to be a struggle.

[Arjun Shastry]

But before this US-Iraq war,What was wrong with Iraq? .

[HS Thomas]

Originally posted by Capablanca Kepler:
But before this US-Iraq war,What was wrong with Iraq? .

Quite a lot actually, topping it all Saddam Hussein and his regime. It remains to be seen what replaces the old regime.

[Jeroen Wenting]

Originally posted by Capablanca Kepler:
But before this US-Iraq war,What was wrong with Iraq? .

That depends on how long before the war you are looking. In the 1940s there was little wrong with the place, the Brits had it all under control
After the Baath party took over, there was little that was NOT wrong with the place (about the only good thing was their objection to religious fundamentalists).

[Tanveer Rameez]

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:

1. Casteism is NOT a part of Hinduism. It was a system of segregation practised by upper class Hindus just as much as racism was practised by whites of North America.

There are lotsa thing in different religion that is not a part of original religion but manipulated and used by some poeple for their interest. Sometimes we blame it on that religion sometimes we simply blame it on the peolpe..depends on how we want to view that religion.

2. To have a FUNCTIONING stable democracy you must be willing to accept diverse opinions. Islam has proven to be inherently incapable of tolerating diversity. Now this is not to say that MUSLIMS (not Islam) cannot have a democratic government. They can, but to do so they must ignore certain basic tenets of their religion.

Nothing in basic tenets of islam says that there cannot be a democracy. Infact the original caliphs of arabia were elected.
[ December 10, 2003: Message edited by: Tanveer Rameez ]

[HS Thomas]

Elected caliphs was news to me so I googled:
caliphs
The Spread of Islam in Iraq
The Byzantine and Sasanid rulers oppressed the people of Syria and Iraq. The Muslims defeated the Persian army at the battle of Qadisiyyah. Most people of Iraq and Persia accepted Islam.

Syria Under Muslim Control
All big cities in the time of the Khulafa' were protected by big, thick walls. Khalid ibn Al-Walid led the Muslim forces which captured Damascus after a siege of six months. Gradually, the Byzantine army was forced out of entire Syria.

Palestine and Egypt Are Liberated
Muslims have special relations with Jews and Christians; the Qur'an calls them 'Ahl Al-Kitab or "People of the Book." Jerusalem was liberated peacefully, and Muslims treated all the citizens generously. 'Umar (R) prayed outside the Church of the Holy Sepulchre so that Muslims would not convert this place of Christian worship into a mosque.
Kerbala (Iraq)
Every year Muslims throughout the world observe with great solemnity the 10th of Muharram as a day of great tragedy. It was on this day that Imam Husain, along with his 72 relatives and friends and supporters were martyred in Kerbala (Iraq) in 61 A.H. (Islamic calendar). For last 1400 years Muslims have been mourning this tragedy. And for Shi`ah Muslims this day of Muharram known as 'Ashura has even greater significance. Sunni Muslims too observe this day with great solemnity.

Any reference books to be recommended on Iraqi Islamic history ?
[ December 10, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]

[HS Thomas]

Originally posted by Vinod John:

"Demoracy" always worked in countries like India, because the government is totally seperated from the religion (hey we have national holidays for Christmas, Ramzan, Diwali no one is left out ), but seperating state from religion near impossible in Islamic country like Iraq or Pakistan or Iran.

India's diversity certainly seems to have helped in achieving democracy.
Separating state from religion is tricky , even in Alabama. Judge "Moses of Alabama".

[Prakash Dwivedi]

When the British left India they also left behind a British trained Indian army and police force , a non-partisan civil service , an independent judiciary and a free press.
Well, When British left Pakistan (at the same time when thay left india, and under same conditions) they left behind similar institutions, army etc in pakistan as well. Is pakistan (currently ruled by Militraty Dictator) a truly democaratic state?

[HS Thomas]

Originally posted by Prakash Dwivedi:

Well, When British left Pakistan (at the same time when thay left india, and under same conditions) they left behind similar institutions, army etc in pakistan as well. Is pakistan (currently ruled by Militraty Dictator) a truly democaratic state?

I would think these institutions would have been concentrated on the Indian side until before Bhutto came to power. Or, are you saying that India is a democracy regardless of these institutions ? Or, India is not a democracy ?
[ December 14, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]

[Prakash Dwivedi]

I would think these institutions would have been concentrated on the Indian side until before Bhutto came to power.
I won't completely agree, cities like Lahore and Karanchi were considered as major cities, even before partition. In 1947 when partion of India and Pakistan was done, than at that time all the assets of the British India were proportionately divided between India and Pakistan.

. Or, are you saying that India is a democracy regardless of these institutions ? Or, India is not a democracy ?
Democracy is no doubt successful in India, but main reasons why it is so successful are
1.Religious leaders were kept out of active politics (although for entirely different reasons).
2.Armed Forces were never used by Government to fulfill their political objectives.
3.Judiciary, Election Commission and other institutions were kept out of politics.
Pakistan also got all these institutions in legacy, but their constant misuse resulted in the collapse of democracy in Pakistan. Thus what I want to say is that by just having certain good institutions, infrastructure is not enough.
Talking about Iraq (and even Afganistan) I doubt that democracy in these country can be successful unless / until they adopt modern ideology, and learn to live in peace. Many People in Afganistan are still uneducated and believe that killing non-muslims is very holy work. They are told all these thinks by their religious leaders.
Few months back I was watching a program on BBC, it was about Islamic Extremist in Pakistan. In an interview a 6 year old boy who was not able tell even his name told that “Osama Bin Laden” is his role model. Who told that kid about “Osama Bin Laden”?. The major problem I believe is the role of Religious Leaders in these countries (who certainly don’t believe in democracy). And no matter what institutions US leaves in these countries (Iraq, Afranistan), Religious Fundamentalist will be able to topple any democratic government.

[HS Thomas]

I do believe you are right about Lahore and Karachi.
Today is a great day for democracy for another reason
Afghanistan Constitutional Convention
[ December 14, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]

[HS Thomas]

Originally posted by Prakash Dwivedi:

Democracy is no doubt successful in India, but main reasons why it is so successful are
1.Religious leaders were kept out of active politics (although for entirely different reasons).
2.Armed Forces were never used by Government to fulfill their political objectives.
3.Judiciary, Election Commission and other institutions were kept out of politics.

This sounds roughly similar to British democracy but Maggie Thatcher fell foul of no.2 on at least 2 occasions - Falklands war, poll tax.