An Associated Press article caught my eye: "Iraqis in U.S. Face Big Hurdles Voting." What size hurdles do you suppose Iraqis in Iraq face in voting?

Terrorists assassinated the governor of the largest province in Iraq on Tuesday. In less than a month, Iraqis are scheduled to elect a government. With the country's most populous regions in a state of disorder, can we really expect anything resembling political liberty by January 30? Or even January 30, 2006?

Aside from the immediate concerns about holding credible elections in a state of anarchy--which certainly describes the situation in certain areas--there is the more important, and more overlooked, longterm issue of whether the vote will bring good things for Iraqis, their neighbors, and us. Ballots can elect a George Washington as easily as they can elect an Adolf Hitler. Sure, giving people a political choice is important. It's also important that people make wise choices. Would you rather be ruled by an 18th-century Virginia gentleman or a 21st-century Shiite cleric? I'll let you guess who is more likely to govern Iraq.

The contemporary fetish for democracy as a panacea for the Middle East's problems overlooks the reality that the people of many Arab countries are more barbaric and anti-American than their rulers. Democracy works neither with an unenlightened nor an oppressive electorate. What good is the ballot that votes away your paycheck, your freedom of speech, and your ability to practice your faith? We can't assume respect for these values to grow overnight in a soil forever hostile to it. Yet if we remain as an occupying force attempting to instill these values over years, we lose lives and money--and risk moving further away from the goal of a free, democratic, and stable Iraq. Democracy by gun point, after all, is an oxymoron.

Last June, I hoped that the Bush Administration's turnover of some basic governing functions of Iraq to indigenous bureaucrats and politicians would impede the insurrection and decrease the killing. It didn't. Similarly, I hope that January's election will bring peace, prosperity, stability, freedom, the rule of law, and self-government to a more enlightened Iraqi people. But I don't think that it will.

In Warrior Politics Robert Kaplan argues that in some situations democracy can be more dangerous and what is needed is a strong goverment ruled by a leader who upholds decent law. He points out several situations to prove this point that I can refer back to later. I'm at work now and don't have the book nor the time to look it up but I did find it very interesting. He pointed out democratic situations in which excess freedom presented to certain types of people have BAD endings. If anyone is interested I can summarize Mr. Kaplan's point later. But after reading this book I began to think that democracy in Iraq could be a really bad thing and what is needed is a powerful president/prime minister - which humans seem to have a hard time doing, weilding a lot of power to benefit the entire nation rather than themselves. It can be done/ has been done Kaplan points out.

Prior planning prevents poor performance.

What did the hawks think we were going to do with this country once we liberated it from its dictator?

The Iraqis have a culture in which our political institutions won't take root. That culture won't change overnight just because the neocons got the president to make the army kill a bunch of Iraqis and then tell them to vote.

Many of these same concerns were expressed after World War II, with regards to Japan, for instance. Their culture simply wasn't able to handle democracy, the critics argued. The critics were wrong then, and I hope they are wrong now. I encourage everyone to check out this book: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1586482610/002-2933639-3184037?v=glance

As far as the question of whether or not the election should be pushed back, I'm not certain. Sharansky argues that it should. After World War II, it took four years before elections could take place in Germany. Like everyone else, I'm just going to hope that the elections sort of turn over a new leaf for Iraq.

Also, I don't think the "Iraqis will elect a radical cleric" argument holds up to the facts. Check out some of the polls here:

http://www.thetruthaboutiraq.org

-ben

Why would critics after World War II argue that Japanese culture was unable to handle democracy when it already had a taste of self-government during the first quarter of the 20th century? Two major differences separate the Japan/Germany transition from fascism to representative government, and the similarly hoped for transition in Iraq: 1. Both Japan and Germany had periods of self-government prior to the postwar era; Iraq has never had anything like that. 2. Germany and Japan were totally defeated before they were occupied--Dresden firebombed, Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuked, etc.