Why Iraq's Democracy Will Fail

The war in Iraq has changed the geo-political equations of Middle East. The balance of power in that region is so precarious, that small changes whether political or religious disturbance can destabilize not only Middle East but also the whole world. Whether the change in Iraq's government was wise or not, only time will tell. But for the current circumstances, we must concern ourselves with how the new Iraqi government will cope with democracy, rising religious fundamentalism, relationship with United States, and its relationship with its neighboring nations and foreign powers which have been astoundingly ignored by mainstream media.

The paper is strongly focused towards Iraq's experiment with democracy and how it will affect that nation and its consequences that may result on global citizens. It is very important to know that a democracy can be very hard to implement in a nation that never had any sort of civic duties. Due to the lack of involvement of citizens, implementation of democracy is very hard, as people would not be able to understand the process and importance of patience involved. To make things worse, the lack of a visible leader who cuts all religious and ethnic lines makes things even worse.

The paper relies on research done by Council of Foreign Relations, which created a Task Force to study the effects of Iraq war. The paper also contains contributions by Newman Edward - author of "UN Role in Promoting Democracy: Between Ideals and Reality". Edwards' book also includes individual perspectives of Tom J. Farer, dean of Graduate School of International Studies at University of Denver, and Simon Chesterman, Executive Director of Institute for International Law and Justice at New York University School of Law. The paper also includes additional input from Kyle Bonilla - expert on foreign relations and President of Students of Democracy at University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

After current US administration's failure to find any weapons of mass destruction, the government cited democracy as one the primary reasons for the liberation or invasion of Iraq. President Bush strongly urged people of the world and American citizens to support liberation of Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam's regime. According to the President, it was the duty of America to sprout new democracies all over the world, and change the face of Middle East.

The mainstream media, whether left or right, strongly agreed with this notion. This opinion was strongly seen throughout 2004 US Presidential elections. All the major political candidates advocated democracy and replacement of dictatorship regimes. Whether conservative or liberal, there was a strong belief that democracy was an answer for the problems of Middle East. What everyone failed to address was why a democracy was a solution to Middle East's problems or if democracy is even possible to be installed. The installation of democracy although a positive outcome, can have a disastrous result, as people have too many expectations of such type of governments. Major flaws of democracy include power being consolidated by majority group, military coups, easy manipulation of citizens, lack of control, increased regionalism, sacrificing of national interests, and individual agendas can lead to dissolving of not only Iraqi Union but also other nations.

According to Terry Karl, author of "Transitions to Democracy: Proceedings of a Workshop", there are certain pre-conditions that are need to be met, in order to build a successful and lasting democracy. The preconditions include wealth, political culture, and historical conditions. According to Karl, a certain amount of wealth is necessary to build a democracy. A country must reach a certain threshold to achieve political democracy, which include literacy, urbanization, and education at different levels, which only wealth can provide. A nation also needs high degree of trust, tolerance, civil behavior, and so forth. If countries had those kinds of cultures, they would more likely develop democracies. Also historical events like, decaying of one established power would help democracy to rise. If there is an absence of decline of a ruling class, a democracy cannot be created.

The issues presented by Karl are very important as it helps us to assess if democracy in Iraq is possible. After analyzing his pre-conditions, it can be inferred that a democracy in Iraq may not be successful.

One of the first pre-conditions of democracy was wealth, and Iraq fails the first precondition. Although Iraq has one of the largest oil reserves in the world, its populace is extremely poor. Decades of war, with Iran, and then with US, has weakened this country's infrastructure, urbanization, and loss of its most of educated citizens had taken away its ability to build wealth. Furthermore, Iraq is in huge debt, which it created during its war with Iran. Even the abundant Iraqi Oil might not bail the country out of its huge debt. Iraq, simply put, is a poor country sitting on a wealthy resource and unable to utilize it for the benefit of its own people.

The second precondition for a successful democracy was political culture. Under Saddam regime, all religions were tolerated, but it cannot be denied that Saddam entertained extremist Islamic forces in order to strengthen his hold in Iraq, and increase his popularity throughout Arab world. Saddam regularly donated money to those who took part in suicide bombings against Israelis. Thus, even though Iraq was a secular nation, it was intolerant of those practicing non-Islamic religions. There was also and still is a strong lack of trust between Shiite and Sunni Iraqis. After being thrown out of power, Sunnis are extremely suspicious of Shiites. Sunnis strongly feel that they will be marginalized in any new form of government, as they are a minority. The same thing can be said about Kurds. Kurds were heavily repressed by Saddam's regime; hence they are heavily apprehensive of losing their political autonomy and giving it to a diverse government that may not look after their interests. Thus inter-group suspicions, rising religious fundamentalism, and lack of tolerance among Iraqis will make it very hard for a democracy to establish itself as the foundation of democracy is based on trust, cooperation, and tolerance of other groups that may not share your beliefs. If people cannot accept that, democracy can never take place.

The third pre-condition, dissolving or decline of established power is partially met and satisfied. After US invasion of Iraq, US dissolved all members of B'aath party - ruling party before US invasion, but after the invasion, the coalition government came to the conclusion that it was severely under-manned and it needed more people to carry out the work of bureaucracy. With the absence of qualified citizens, the coalition government was forced to allow B'aath party members to take up their previous work. Thus, the old order that was dismantled came back as a new ruling class. It may very well be possible that this old order may take an influential role in the forming of new government, essentially keeping the old order alive in some form, thus preventing successful establishment of democracy.

After analyzing all the three pre-conditions it can be said that a democracy in Iraq that is "successful", and "will last", is highly remote. Even if such a possibility were to be entertained, democracy will not solve any problems, but rather create whole new ones. According to Kyle Bonilla, a fellow and president at U-M Ann Arbor's Students for Democracy, the current administration, ex-presidential candidates, and the mainstream media, are heavily gambling on the success of democracy. What they are failing to realize are the possible outcomes that can happen if democracy did realize. Bonilla believes that if democracy were to be realized there is no guarantee that the new government would be pro-US. It could be Shiite dominated government that strongly favors the interests of Shiite's at the expense of minority groups such as Sunnis and Kurds. If that were to happen, a civil war would break out, that would eventually lead to the destruction of the Iraqi Union. A strong Shiite government could also alter the balance of power in the Islamic world. With Iraq and Iran, as the leaders of the Shiite Muslims, they could confront the dominant school of Islamic thought, thus further destabilizing the entire world and dividing Islamic religion, which would do no good to the world. A democratically elected Iraqi regime could also be forced to engage a war with Israel, as its citizens strongly support Palestinians. The governing Iraqi party wouldn't be able to do anything in this regard except to engage Israel if it were to stay in power. This situation never aroused before, as people in Middle East were powerless, if their views are taken into account by the government, it can strongly lead to destabilization of that region. It is not to say that the people of Iraq shouldn't enjoy freedom, but it is important for the people to know the importance of freedom, and the consequences that may result with it. If people in Iraq were to be free, and have a high suspicion of others, it would only make things worse, and democracy would be used a means of a weapon rather than peace.

The views expressed by Bonilla are very valid. None of the mainstream media mention about the consequences that may result if democracy were to happen in Iraq. Most newspapers paint a rosy picture, if democracy were to take place in Iraq. Although, the people of Iraq shouldn't be denied the opportunity of freedom, one should be very well aware of consequences. In a democracy with low literacy levels, people can be easily swayed, thus it is highly possible that a democratic Iraq can give rise to a new fascist government. One must not forget how Hitler rose to power in Germany. The Nazis did not impose dictatorship in Germany, but Germans themselves did not support democracy. The same thing can happen in Iraq, if people of Iraq do not understand the importance, and the patience needed with democracy, Iraq may soon create a new fascist leader who could use democracy to carry out hateful agenda.

It can be safely concluded that the possibility of Iraqi Democracy is very remotely successful. All major institutions, from the Current Administration, mainstream media, and politicians, do not see far beyond the implementation of democracy in Iraq. From our three point pre-conditions necessary to establish a democracy, Iraq only partially fulfills one of them. With the absence of high tolerance level, and wealth, implementation of democracy is hardly possible. Even if it were to be a possibility it may very well end up creating a fascist leader, who has a mandate from the citizens of that nation to carry out his radical agenda. It is very important that for Iraq to be a successful democracy, the implementation of democracy should be abandoned until all the pre-conditions are met. If these pre-conditions aren't satisfied, the situation in Iraq may be far worse and destabilizing than before that could affect everyone around the globe. These governing institutions of US and the world are strongly gambling on the success of Iraqi democracy. The success of Iraqi democracy can lead to many new problems which aren't even being addressed by the media or the government. No one is asking what would happen, if a majority Shiite government challenges the established Islamic School of thought? What would happen to the security of Israel? What would happen to the mostly Sunni dominated governments of Middle East, and how they would perceive a Shiite dominated government, whom they repressed for as long as they existed? If these questions aren't addressed the war in Iraq would mean nothings and loss of thousands of lives will be a waste, as Iraq might well end up being a pariah state like N. Korea or Cuba.

Bobby Jindal for Vice Presidency? McCain-Jindal Ticket?
Hillary Clinton for Vice President