the hard road to democracy

It would be mighty nice if well-meaning democracies (or democratic republics) could hop into a country with a different culture, different religion, different economy, and different social realities and transform them by waving the flag of Western freedom. But, as we have seen, it isn't quite as easy as all that.

What does it take to remake a country after our own image? I would say that it primarily takes power. Not just the power of, "hey we have an army so democracy-presto." But power in the sense that each branch of the new government is capable of carrying out their duties to their just ends. Right now, when government officials and judges are in constant danger of assassination and prone to corruption without consequence, there is no real power for government to work for the people. Unless the government works well, it won't work at all.

So where does this power come from? The obvious answer is on the enforcement side or the executive branch. It is true that enforcement is necessary, but that isn't all there is to it. Right now, in Iraq, enforcement is the strongest element. But unless the judicial branch administers true justice in a timely way, and unless the legislative branch can support the judicial and executive branches with just laws, the enforcement is temporary at best, and counter-productive at worst.

In the United States we have centuries of case law (some inherited from England) that supports our judicial system. We also have centuries of legislation that support or legislative branches. And this inheritance is born of our own culture and as such it reflects our own civil, social, economic, and moral values. In Iraq they are starting from scratch with the supervising influence of a totally different culture imposing its values into their society.

Along those lines, power to animate a democratic government comes from a unified trust in the principles of the system. When you live in a place where you don't trust or agree with the principles of the law you won't comply with them unless enforcement is very high. But in that case, especially if the majority of society doesn't agree, it is less like a democracy and more like a military state. In our society law enforcement is a relatively small presence. This is the case because most people agree with the value of the laws and abide by them because they want to and not because they have to. This is not the case in many respects in a country that is unfamiliar with and disagreeable to the imported values driving their new law. Thus, enforcement rests in an unhealthy proportion on the law enforcers.

There are other areas outside of the government itself that Iraq lacks the power to successfully build a democratic government. Without a well developed press the people have no recourse to ensure their representatives behave themselves. Good and readily available information is a necessary ingredient to keeping checks on government and ensuring that the power it is bestowed with is rightly used.

Some say that Iraq's democracy problem is enhanced by their religious ideology. In part I agree. Many of the fundamental principles of democracy are founded, or at least supported by, Christianity. Values of justice, equality, civil order, moral law, servant leadership, etc. are taken for granted as being universal truths that everyone understands and wants. But the reality is that while many cultures do value these things in their own manner, the way we in the U.S. value them comes from centuries of refinement - refinement often initiated by applying Biblical truth to our cultural systems. This inheritance is one we take for granted, so much so that we often don't realize it exists and we assume all cultures are like ours, or at least want to be like ours deep in their hearts.

The last point of power is a somewhat obvious one. It is democracy we are talking about and what is a democracy without a majority? I think one of the big problems with Iraq is that their is no majority group pushing for a robust and just democracy, hence no democracy exists. When the U.S. began its government after the Revolution it went through years of growing pains. But, throughout it all, they had a majority of like-minded people that wanted similar things. This like-minded group was white, Anglo-Saxon, protestant men. It would be a pleasant thought to think that democracy in America could have existed and thrived with a multi-cultural base, but it just isn't the case. I have seen several TV programs lately about Reconstruction, Civil Rights, and, most recently, the exploitation of the blacks and poor whites in the Mississippi River flood relief efforts in the 1920s. It is clear that justice did not exist for the ethnic or cultural minorities (and perhaps still doesn't) in the way it did for the majority. But the mutual interests of the majority made the government develop and function. Ironically, on the one hand Democracy can't grow unless there is a majority to build and enforce the system, and on the other hand the majority often exploits the power they create over against the minority.

In Iraq there are three ethnic groups that don't get along and are being forced to trust the power of a powerless system in regard to how they function together as a group. These three groups are divided by ethnicity, painful history, and fundamental religious differences. If American, with their rich inheritance of law, government, ethics, morality, and relative peace took 200 years to develop a system that acts justly and with power for all its people, what hope does Iraq have?

The only solution I see is to segregate Iraq into its distinct ethnic groups. By themselves they will have enough majorities to move forward with their nation building. Segregation seems harsh. It seems like surely the truly good way is to press on for everyone to get along. But integration still isn't a reality in the U.S. and aside from the color of our skin and some relatively minor social differences we don't have near the divide that the Iraqi peoples do. And cultural melting pots are not universally understood ideas for "nations". In fact the opposite is true in that part of the world. It is time to be realistic and be truly democratic. The people want to be separate, let them be.