What is Iraqi democracy?
“In order to realize democracy the titular attribution of power and its actual exercise do not remain in the same hands.”
Giovanni Sartori
Democracy is more than elections. Democracy is more than the tyranny of the majority. In fact, a true and liberal democracy is “a political system in which individual and group liberties are well protected and in which there exist autonomous spheres of civil society and private life, insulated from state control.” (1) This is the end of a liberal democracy. Many scholars have laid out the means. I will approach this topic via three academic researchers: Francis Fukuyama, Robert Dahl and Robert Putnam.
The Fukuyama Four (2) :
The first level of democracy must begin with the psyche. The idea of democracy must be prevalent in all sectors of society. Evidence of democratic ideals in Iraq have been seen, “at the local levels, elections have been free and competitive, there is considerable freedom of the press, basic civil liberties are secure, and the bureaucracies are responsive to popular concerns and surprisingly accountable.” (3)This first stage is achieved when clear democratic ideas have been cemented in the minds of most Iraqis. The next level is the institutional make up of the country. This would include electoral systems, political parties and constitutional development. This level is critical for the next and most important level: civil society. Civil society is ‘local’ politics. Civil society is an outlet for communities and local groups to voice their collective opinion and have their needs recognized. Civil society is the conduit for democratic deepening. This deepening is the final level according to Fukuyama. This level “includes phenomena such as family structure, religion, moral values, ethnic consciousness, ‘civic-ness,’ and particularistic historical traditions.”(4) In Iraq this level will help fend off radical groups bent on revolution and disharmony. This level is more important than armies and suicide bombers. At this level dinner discussions can center on civil disobedience and peaceful demonstrations not plans for dynamite belts.
Dahl’s Democratic Process:
Dahl’s process involves two distinct stages. First, political order must be established. Reminiscent of Madison in Federalist No. 51, in which, “you must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, force it to control itself.”(5)Moreover, “political order involves two stages a setting the agenda and deciding the outcome.”(6) In other words, government must have the power to set agendas and follow through with policies. This will create tangible outcomes for the citizens (i.e. public water projects, street cleaning and repair, health centers), and government can reap the benefits, in the form of legitimacy. In the next stage, order is redefined as democratic political order; in which, “the claims of each citizen as to the desirability of the policies to be adopted must be counted as valid.”(7)This stage is dominated by effective participation, voting and understanding. This stage is extremely complex. Citizens must have time and energy to view vast amounts of information. Furthermore, the government must not coerce decisions. Finally, the government must adhere to the vote verdict.
Putnam and Civil Society with Social Capital:
This last democratic reflection illustrates the most important aspect of democracy, where it becomes ‘the only game in town.’ This can occur if institutions are viable and facilitate virtuous democratic political behavior. Thus, when society has a specific demand, political interaction is generated. The government listens and acts on demands. This in turn creates policy and implementation by government actors. For, “a high-performance democratic institution must be responsive and effective; sensitive to the demands of its constituents and effective in using limited resources to address those demands.”(8) With effective institutions behavior can and often does change. This is a critical juncture where old habits die and new aspirations arise. If institutions are responsive then citizens will be more likely to use political means for discussion and conflict resolution. In the end, “citizens in a civic community regard the public domain as more than a battleground for pursuing personal interest.”(9) In Iraq this public domain must be decentralized and consensus building. Consequently, the most effective democratic structure for Iraq is a Federal Republican Democratic System.
1. Diamond, Larry. 1999. Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation. Baltimore: John’s Hopkins UP.3.
2. Fukuyama, Francis. “The Primacy of Culture.” Journal of Democracy. v. 6 n. 1 (1995).7.
3. Byman, Daniel. “Constructing a Democratic Iraq: Changes and Opportunities.” International Security. v. 28 (Summer 2003): 70.
4. Fukuyama, Francis. “The Primacy of Culture.” Journal of Democracy. v. 6 n. 1 (1995).8.
5. Webster, Mary (ed). 1999. The Federalist Papers: In Modern Language Indexed for Today’s Political Issues. Bellevue, Washington: Merril Press. 211.
6. Dahl, Robert. 1998. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven: Yale UP. 107.
7. Dahl, Robert. 1998. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven: Yale UP.108.
8. Putnam, Robert D.1994. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern
Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.9.
9. Putnam, Robert D.1994. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern
Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.88.
Giovanni Sartori
Democracy is more than elections. Democracy is more than the tyranny of the majority. In fact, a true and liberal democracy is “a political system in which individual and group liberties are well protected and in which there exist autonomous spheres of civil society and private life, insulated from state control.” (1) This is the end of a liberal democracy. Many scholars have laid out the means. I will approach this topic via three academic researchers: Francis Fukuyama, Robert Dahl and Robert Putnam.
The Fukuyama Four (2) :
The first level of democracy must begin with the psyche. The idea of democracy must be prevalent in all sectors of society. Evidence of democratic ideals in Iraq have been seen, “at the local levels, elections have been free and competitive, there is considerable freedom of the press, basic civil liberties are secure, and the bureaucracies are responsive to popular concerns and surprisingly accountable.” (3)This first stage is achieved when clear democratic ideas have been cemented in the minds of most Iraqis. The next level is the institutional make up of the country. This would include electoral systems, political parties and constitutional development. This level is critical for the next and most important level: civil society. Civil society is ‘local’ politics. Civil society is an outlet for communities and local groups to voice their collective opinion and have their needs recognized. Civil society is the conduit for democratic deepening. This deepening is the final level according to Fukuyama. This level “includes phenomena such as family structure, religion, moral values, ethnic consciousness, ‘civic-ness,’ and particularistic historical traditions.”(4) In Iraq this level will help fend off radical groups bent on revolution and disharmony. This level is more important than armies and suicide bombers. At this level dinner discussions can center on civil disobedience and peaceful demonstrations not plans for dynamite belts.
Dahl’s Democratic Process:
Dahl’s process involves two distinct stages. First, political order must be established. Reminiscent of Madison in Federalist No. 51, in which, “you must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, force it to control itself.”(5)Moreover, “political order involves two stages a setting the agenda and deciding the outcome.”(6) In other words, government must have the power to set agendas and follow through with policies. This will create tangible outcomes for the citizens (i.e. public water projects, street cleaning and repair, health centers), and government can reap the benefits, in the form of legitimacy. In the next stage, order is redefined as democratic political order; in which, “the claims of each citizen as to the desirability of the policies to be adopted must be counted as valid.”(7)This stage is dominated by effective participation, voting and understanding. This stage is extremely complex. Citizens must have time and energy to view vast amounts of information. Furthermore, the government must not coerce decisions. Finally, the government must adhere to the vote verdict.
Putnam and Civil Society with Social Capital:
This last democratic reflection illustrates the most important aspect of democracy, where it becomes ‘the only game in town.’ This can occur if institutions are viable and facilitate virtuous democratic political behavior. Thus, when society has a specific demand, political interaction is generated. The government listens and acts on demands. This in turn creates policy and implementation by government actors. For, “a high-performance democratic institution must be responsive and effective; sensitive to the demands of its constituents and effective in using limited resources to address those demands.”(8) With effective institutions behavior can and often does change. This is a critical juncture where old habits die and new aspirations arise. If institutions are responsive then citizens will be more likely to use political means for discussion and conflict resolution. In the end, “citizens in a civic community regard the public domain as more than a battleground for pursuing personal interest.”(9) In Iraq this public domain must be decentralized and consensus building. Consequently, the most effective democratic structure for Iraq is a Federal Republican Democratic System.
1. Diamond, Larry. 1999. Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation. Baltimore: John’s Hopkins UP.3.
2. Fukuyama, Francis. “The Primacy of Culture.” Journal of Democracy. v. 6 n. 1 (1995).7.
3. Byman, Daniel. “Constructing a Democratic Iraq: Changes and Opportunities.” International Security. v. 28 (Summer 2003): 70.
4. Fukuyama, Francis. “The Primacy of Culture.” Journal of Democracy. v. 6 n. 1 (1995).8.
5. Webster, Mary (ed). 1999. The Federalist Papers: In Modern Language Indexed for Today’s Political Issues. Bellevue, Washington: Merril Press. 211.
6. Dahl, Robert. 1998. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven: Yale UP. 107.
7. Dahl, Robert. 1998. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven: Yale UP.108.
8. Putnam, Robert D.1994. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern
Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.9.
9. Putnam, Robert D.1994. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern
Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.88.
posted by JDAvignon at 8:36 PM
4 Comments:
Jon
I found your arguments interesting, however, I have my own position on the matter.
Democracy, and the American birth of it at the end of the 18th century, are very directly linked to the end of the Enlightenment in Europe. Since 1725 or so, Europe had been soaking in the principles and ideas that the Enlightenment thinkers had disceminated to the masses. From my own musical background, you can see the tremendous influences of this on composers. Let's take J.S. Bach, who was primarily important in the 1720's and '30s, who was just outside the cusp of the Enlightenment. All of his works were signed, "To the greater glory of God" - like most pre-Enlightenment Europeans, life centered around the idea of God. God this and God that. God everything. Shall we then venture to look at Franz Josef Haydn? Born in the early 1720s, his work was reaching maturity in the 1750s. By 1786, with the completion of Mozart's The Marriage of Figaro, we see Europe on the edge of a Powder Keg. Within a few years, the French Revolution would occur, and the Old World would "die" as it were.
Now we find ourselves in the America of the 21st Century and I am very prone to believe that the NeoCons and W are leading a counter Enlightenment. The idea of reverting back to more theocratically based law, restriction of civil liberties, and singular moral guidance from an appointed figure reeks of the illnesses the Enlightenment sought to rid society of. James Dobson and Jerry Falwell embody the singular evil and vitriol that is nothing more than obstinate ignorance; ignorance scared of the ever widening world, of the cosmopolitan views being more thoroughly accepted, of the wisdom that is gained from a greater scope from which to judge beliefs we have always held dear. Rather than trying to embrace this, the ignorance in these men is rooted enough to motivate them to lash out in fear. They are the reactionary hatred that is always present in such turbulent times.
Is it not poetically ironic that they have taken the Enlightenment ideas of Democracy and proceeded to Crusade through the Holy Lands once again? These men, who embody something as far from the Enlightenment as the Theocratic Rule of the Church in the Middle Ages? To make it even more lamentable, they are fighting themselves. The greatest mistake of this administration, and of the whole arrogant white world, is that we presume our own history is homogenous with the history of all cultures in the world. When we speak of the Western Classical Tradition, there is a reason we denote Western in the title. The Muslim world has never known an Enlightenment period. The idea that there is a distinction between the secular studies and the divinities is inconceivable. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is something that most certainly impedes the idea that they will take to a secular democratic government as prescribed by the US. And even then, the idea that we have a secular democratic government is arguable at times.
What we ultimately face in the wave of these troubles with the Muslim world is a lack of compromise on either side: we have always assumed our own way to be Messianic, and the Muslim world has no use for post-Enlightenment principles.
Your cultural understanding is wonderful, however please read the following work: John Locke The Second Treatise on Civil Government. It is a very short work and establishes the Jeffersonian ideals of property, life, liberty. Also it reveals an understanding of human nature which is quite parallel to Hobbes in that human nature is primarily concerned with self preservation.
The W doctrine is rooted in Hobbesian self preservation. (IE “we must fight them over there before we fight them at home.”) This reeks of fear and distrust of human nature. Interestingly W’s judgment of human nature is filtered through a prism of self-righteousness and hubris which is in direct opposing to a healthy democratic polyarchy.
Jon
Locke's positions on personal identity, Of Identity and Diversity, strike me as a more fundamental root to discussions concerning his beliefs. Once this has been approached, I'm more inclined to believe that his thoughts on self-preservation do not necessarily have much to do with this particular strain of thought.
I do understand that it is self-preservation on both ends of the spectrum. However, I am inclined to point out that we are ill-equipped to tackle a culture that by our own standards resort to barbarism out of a lack of civilization. Whereas it is not beyond conceivability in that part of the world that kidnappings can result in beheadings, it (and this is important) is inconceivable to our Enlightened minds that such a thing could ever occur. We must approach the culture for what it is. This is the nature of the conflict. The ever growing catalyst for catastrophe is the shrinking of the world.
As we grow exponentially in the Information Age, the world's miles seem less lengthy. Part of me wonders if the great lashing out in the Muslim world is not the signs of a creature dying. When animals die, they either go peacefully or become enraged, lashing out at anything it can. If it is not this, I fear it may be simply the sounding of a war cry from these Islamitists who are sounding a rebellion against the secular advances within their communities. Either way, they are certainly sensitive to the fact that outside opinions and ways of thinking are seeping into their cultures and undermining the traditions they have held for two thousand years.
I will admit my bias that I do not consider religious rule in any way beneficial. It is my hope that the Western temperament of religious thought will eventually bleed over into the Muslim world as well to calm the spread of extremism. I feel it more hopeful to wish for this than to wish for us to leave them alone - we are already too invested in the region. To pull out now will only leave them soaring to exact vengeance for making a mess and leaving. As it is, we cannot win: we insult them by being there, and if we leave, we leave all of our rubble for them to stew in.
For my money, I am more inclined to examine the arguments more closely. The NeoCons approach to this question is where I will generally attach my criticism. I prefer to debunk the slightly deluted Metaphysical crap that comes with the territory these Idealogues will roam. Dahl's approach to limiting the concept of Democracy to a standard 8 principles is interesting, and I find myself more drawn to this. I also find his point that the Paradox of Democracy, to some extent, lies in its creation. Often times, Democracy is only attained through blood. However, and this is where I find the Iraqi Freedom Foolishness defunct, the principle necessary for such a self-governing revolution to occur must originate from the people, limitations to that definition allowed. On top of this, and another reason I think that this issue was too lightly approached, Dahl points out that Information (yes, the vague concept) only leads to confusion. The idea that we disagree because we don't know any better isn't necessarily so - and I agree with Dahl on this point - More Information leads to GREATER conflict of interests. There is a wonderful book written in the 1970's by a sociologist named Eric Goode called Deviant Behavior: An Interactionist Approach. There is a quote in this book that changed my life when I first came across it three years ago: "...seeing the world in a complex fashion blunts and diffuses condemnation of it."
I am more inclined to think that the limitations of the problem must be acknowledged in order for any debate to begin, or the basic premise of epistemic inquiry is violated and we are all squawking at each other. Call me a J. L. Austin fanitic, if you will. It is the wile of these people to not define "them" in any clear terminology, to live in fear of this unknown problem and stab blindly at it that is causing so much of the problem. This show of 'force' as it were against Iraq has only served to undermine us because we gave in to laziness. By defining the limits of the problem clearly and recognizing the definitive "Lack" as it were that we don't know, then we can approach this problem of 'terrorism', 'us and them', and whatever other vague terms they've applied to it, adequately.
The problem with the problem I find with Hobbes is the feeling of a universal answer that I get from his political philosophy. There is no such thing - contestation is in the very nature of the idea of Democracy. How is it possible that ever there could exist such a fanciful mirage? On top of the fact that such polyarchies of self-government not being limited to the judicial, executive, and legislative, but also taking into account cultural and religious hierarchies within these, it is impossible to even begin to approach such a foolish notion. Scalia's death is in his obstinance to review the words of the Constitution out of a misunderstanding that the contestation principle is original to the Democratic Theory.
But that's my bones with aloof metaphysician in these sorts of arguments who sit around and wait to piss me off. I can only take my hat off and bow in reverence to the brilliance and clarity of Austin at these times and thank God I love epistemology. Clarity of the problem often exposes the true nature of it, as well as a more precise location of where to find the answer. In the rush for self-preservation, I find we have abandoned any reasonable amount of scrutiny and simply rushed into this unknown, Metaphysical 'hypothetical' with our guns blazing.
I suppose this assumes that you would even agree with me that much of the inherent problem in these sorts of discussions is metaphysical in root.
You are meant for each other.
Post a Comment
<< Home