USIP: Constitutional Reform in Iraq: Improving Prospects, Political Decisions Needed

[marct]

Hi Rex,

Well no, they weren't (with the exception of Hamas, and the only partial exception of Iran). It is true that they all tried to claim democratic legitimacy (which is I think your point), but I think that only highlights the (potential) power of expressed popular consent.

What I was trying to highlight was that a form was followed. I included the ones you say weren't democratically elected to make (admittedly poorly ) the point that all "democracies" are not total democracies. Every democratic society limits the franchise somehow or other, age if nothing else, and this creates a situation where it is very unlikely that you will ever have the expression of a full majority of "the people". Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot all limited the franchise extensively, while Hitler used the mechanisms and forms of democracy in 1932 to do the same.

One of the things that bothers me a lot about the debates surrounding "democracy" is that there is very little discussion of the assumptions behind the franchise. It's a bit of a soapbox of mine left over from my time in politics.

The question of democracy and underlying political culture is a hotly debated (perhaps THE most hotly debated) issue in the democratization literature. Certainly it helps a great deal if underlying cultural values support democracy—but the "third wave" of democratization suggested that it could also take root in societies with no prior history of democratic politics.

Maybe I'm just being pessimistic, but I don't think it can in the vast majority of cases. A form of it, sure, but not if we mean something like universal suffrage of everyone over 18. And, even if that particular form were to come in, how would it be different from, say, US party politics but reflected via tribal "parties"? I think Rhodesia/Zimbabwe is a very god example of just that: tribal organization and power cloaked in a "democratic" form.

I think the prevailing social practice in much of the world is not so much overturning laws, or the governments that made them, but rather simply ignoring them (or a passive-aggressive non-cooperation with government, in what James Scott called "everyday forms of resistance")--especially where the central government lacks the ability to enforce its legal writ.

Agreed. The more extreme eamples would be, say, the Sudan.

I tend to think that democratic politics has a lot to do with boundaries of the acceptable and unacceptable, in which public attitudes, capabilities, perceived intentions, and the local balance of forces play a key role. Democracies tend to work when political entrpreneurs are unwilling or unable to contemplate using nondemocratic methods to achieve policy ends. Its kind of like successful nuclear deterrence

Oh, beautifully put! I really like that Rex! And it captures quite nicely why I feel that many efforts to "democratize" "nations" fail - the political entrepreneurs like the clothing of democracy; it's coll, hip and happening and guarantees they'll get all sorts of Western aid goodies, but the underlying assumptions are, essentially, non-democratic.

Marc

[tequila]

Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot all limited the franchise extensively, while Hitler used the mechanisms and forms of democracy in 1932 to do the same.

One of the things that bothers me a lot about the debates surrounding "democracy" is that there is very little discussion of the assumptions behind the franchise. It's a bit of a soapbox of mine left over from my time in politics.

Idi Amin and Pol Pot never held elections. Stalin did not limit the franchise but rather banned all parties except the Communist Party, resulting often in single-candidate elections or elections where voters were given a choice of "yes/no" on the Party's selected candidate.

These rulers ruled primarily through nondemocratic means, not through manipulation of democratic forms.

I think better examples would be, for instance, Algeria under French rule, Rhodesia under the RF or South Africa under the National Party. In these cases, elections did matter as the winners did form governments that exercised power --- however these governments were not democratic as significant portions of the population were excluded through franchise limitation.