Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon
I'm not arguing that they're for SECULAR democracy; but they are for democracy. You can't argue with over 80% participation at the polls. Their motivation for voting may be religiously based and they are obviously going to pick leaders who represent their interests. Even if Iraq turns into a de facto Shiite leaning state, there will still be a significant opposition block that is placed there by the people who want their voice heard in the GoI. That's the part that isn't going to go away.
Having lived in a democracy my whole life, I can assure you that is not reality in any democracy.You can't say the government is one block with a particular view and the people are a completely separate block with a different view. If anything, the politicians are going to mimic what the majority of the people want or expect from their leaders (at least if they want to stay in office).
The people in control government have one particular view: to stay in control of the government by any means necessary. When that is at odds with a majority of people who no longer want them in control of the government, they fail to get re-elected. If those in control of the government were always reflective of the people need and expect, we wouldn't need elections or oppostion parties.
One of the big stories that will play out in January is the difference between Iraq's election and Iran's election.Second, just because Iraq will have a democratically elected government in January 2010 does not mean it will still be democratic in January of 2011. History is replete with examples of dictators who came to power initially via democratic election. People are often willing to trade liberty for security.
If the election is peaceful and valid (as the last two have been), I highly doubt that they will be willing to trade their liberty for the demonstrated "security" of some of their neighbors.
Bookmarks