DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ

140

DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ: SCHOLARS' POINTS OF VIEW. Cont'd.

Democracy in Iraq By Rahul Mahajran

Photo: Victim of the USA/IRAQ war.Iraqi society has suffered through periods of colonial rule, monarchy, Arab nationalism, and fascist revolution. In such a society, prevailing levels of political trust, social tolerance, popular support for political liberty, and gender equality fall far short of what is found in all established democracies. Iraq's democratization will be hindered by cultural and religious factors that neither stimulate nor foster political liberty. Iraqi political organizations are not ready to concede defeat in a political contest. Critically, both the Shiite and Sunni Muslim religions prescribe a decidedly anachronistic view of a woman's role in society. A political culture shapes democracy far more than democracy shapes the political culture. One must hope that, against all available evidence, contemporary Iraqi political culture has minimal influence on the new Iraqi democracy. Democracy is an evolutionary development rather than an overnight phenomenon. No single day of good news from Iraq changes that reality.

The United States is now a formal colonial power in Iraq, and the combination of the Administration's deceptions and the mounting American casualties has dimmed the shine on the colonialists' boots. In March and April, public support for the war was in the neighborhood of 75 percent; by the end of July, it had fallen below 60 percent. It might have fallen further but for the notion--peddled by Bush, as well as by Thomas Friedman of The New York Times--that the reason for the war didn't matter because the United States liberated the Iraqi people and is now building democracy in Iraq. It is certainly true that the Iraqis are free from the extreme authoritarian brutality of Saddam Hussein's regime; unfortunately, it doesn't exactly follow that the Administration intends to create democracy in Iraq. An Administration that will play fast and loose with the truth on Iraq's putative weapons of mass destruction is entirely capable of doing the same regarding its true intentions for the future Iraqi government. The question of what sort of society the United States is building in Iraq takes on tremendous significance, since Iraq may be just one of many. "We're going to get better over time," Lawrence Di Rita, a special assistant to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, told the Los Angeles Times. "We'll get better as we do it more often." To get a hint of what the Bush Administration has in mind, it's instructive to take a quick look at its previous effort in democracy building: Afghanistan. Since routing the Taliban, Washington has been propping up some of the most undemocratic forces in Afghanistan, including the various regional warlords, like Ismail Khan of Herat and Abdul Rashid Dostum of Mazar-i-Sharif. A study by the Center for Economic and Social Rights found that one of the most common complaints from ordinary Afghans was about U.S. support for the warlords. Many Afghans, the report noted, "named U.S. policy as the prime obstacle to disarming warlords." A recent report from Human Rights Watch charges that U.S. support for these warlords could jeopardize attempts to adopt a new constitution and to hold elections in 2004. "Gunmen and warlords who were propelled into power by the United States and its coalition partners" have "essentially hijacked the country outside of Kabul," says Brad Adams, executive director of the Asia division of Human Rights Watch.

The article continues on the following pages.