|
|
By Micah D. Halpern
February 6, 2003
What happens the day after?
What kind of leadership will be in place after the United States leaves Iraq? Who will govern? Who will police? So far, I've heard no satisfactory answers, no realistic responses.
Defeating Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein from power are the goals of the U.S. operation, finding weapons of mass destruction is just the cover. Ultimately, the United States wants to bring Iraq into the circle of democratic countries.
Is democracy the answer? Can the Iraqi people handle democracy? Do they know its awesome responsibility? Many people in power assume the answer is yes. I disagree.
The idea of bringing an American style of democracy to Iraq or of imposing a United States military or civilian government in order to assist locals in the transition to democracy that the United States assumes Iraqis want and need after Saddam is removed - is blatantly wrong.
Democracy is not a panacea in the Middle East. It can make matters worse and create more resentment toward the West.
Let's look at an Iraq after Saddam. First democracy is instituted and free elections are called. Voila. Who gets elected? A Shiite, fundamentalist, Muslim government. How? Because in Iraq, the fundamentalist Shiite sect is the majority. They are the poor and the uneducated and they will all come out to vote. Why? Because it will offer them the opportunity to overthrow the Kurdish and Sunni minorities. And after they overthrow them they will massacre them. All with the blessing of the United States.
Iraq will then become the second Shiite nation, after Iran. And Jordan and the rest of the region will be up in arms. Because what the region desires most is stability and Saddam Hussein - whatever he is or was - had stability. A Shiite state, on the other hand, is in constant revolution and turmoil, not to mention poverty.
The same is the case for example, with the Palestinian Authority, another regime that the United States intends to reform. If, or when, there are elections the result will certainly be to re-elect Arafat. Palestinians will vote Arafat if for no other reason than to spit in the face of the United States and Israel who say that he is the problem. What good will that do?
Democracy is a good idea, but that's exactly what it is, an idea. It is appropriate and positive only when the democratic idea is coupled with democratic ideals.
Democracy is not simply imposed. Democracy is not like martial law. People will not reach out and submit to democracy out of awe for its great achievements. Freedom and responsibility, leadership and accountability are not things that naturally emerge after a despot has been removed from power, they are learned reactions. What naturally follows is anarchy, profiteering and the rise of mafia-type powers and monopoly - corruption, strong arm tactics, economic turmoil.
Democracy requires the re-education of a society. It takes years to transform young students from potential human bombs into positive, progressive participants in a society that will work for them, with them, because of them.
Democracy takes practice and apprenticeship and time.
Before an effective democracy can emerge a safe, secure, society must be in place. Corrupt remnants must be driven out with force and the people must be encouraged to learn and to experiment with leadership. A place where citizens can openly discuss issues of power and politics, a place where everyone's voice can be heard, where extremists are marginalized because they represent so few, where the corrupt are tried and punished by law is new and unfathomable to people who for so, so long lived under tyranny and dictatorial rule.
My solution then, astounding as it may seem, is to blend the old with the new, to slowly guide a society that has never been shown personal freedom into a democratic nation. Slowly, carefully.
How is this done? The best option is to prop up a ruthless opportunist and position him as leader. Bringing order is something a ruthless opportunist does well. With his wily natural inclinations kept under check, things will run well. Without him, the remaining forces will crush the democratic reformers and intimidate the majority. At the same time committees of leaders - locals assisted by outsiders from long time democratic nations - would begin to work together as decision makers and begin to deal with the democratically driven bureaucracy of leadership and education that transforms a society. Finally, the ruthless opportunist is paid off and removed from power and the country and the people elect a real leader.
It sounds like replacing one despot with another - Saddam exchanged for a Shah, Arafat exchanged for another former terrorist leader like Dahlan. True, but more importantly, it is a necessary period of transition and with the proper protections in place, democracy will arrive. These should not be repeats of U.S. mistakes in Central and South America.
Consider it a Mideast form of democracy, appropriate to the time and place, but nevertheless, it will be a democracy. And it can happen, but one day at a time.
Views expressed by the author do not
necessarily reflect those of israelinsider.
 
|
|
|
|
Click on the blue headline to read a Talkback comment and respond to it. Click on the  icon to send a private email to the talkback writer. The icon appears only if the writer has decided to be contacted. If no popup window appears, please make sure your popup blocker allows israelinsider.com.
|
|
| |
|
|
