It's funny that so many are citing this as "Iranian", since affairs in Iran are much more cosmopolitan in some ways than what is described in the article.
Look, it's not a great situation, but it's not as if we've declared the job over and left. Democracy is going to take a while to establish itself, and in the meantime there's going to be an uneasy balance between the armed factions, the foreign military, and the government. And its far too esy to paint the picture in black and white, Shiite versus Sunni. There are plenty of Shiites who are not that conservative and who are going to buck that kind of religious government too. What the US and its allies need to do, I think, is make sure that no one faction can coerce all the others just because it has more weapons. But that's a tightrope to walk, because we can't simply disarm everyone in the country.
And the situation is at least somewhat better than it was under Saddam already. Yes, some armed conservatives are trying to force their views on others, but notice the others feel perfectly free to speak out, even to western journalists. They would rarely if ever have done that in the old days.
And, in the final analysis, we have to be prepared for the possibility that when we try to impart "democracy" to people in other cultures, they may take our model, add bits of their own, and throw away parts that we treasure. Giving people choices means accepting that they may make different choices than we would. I think part of the problem with America's own polarized electorate is that so many people on both sides simply can't accept that other people could legitimately and sincerely hold beleifs different from their own. :-(
Well, I think how seriously one takes this might be related to which side of the Birka one is on.
As far as democracy meaning people can make choices we disagree with, democracy is only as good as its respect for basic inherent human rights. Without that, democracy is just mob rule. Not that there's going to be any democracy in Iraq. It'll be the same puppet government until we leave followed by a civil war in which if we're lucky we get a modernist dictator along Saddam's lines or if we're unlucky we get an Islamist state.
Why do you assume a dictatotr is preferable to an Islamic state? I think if given a Rawlsian choice (i.e., not knowing where they end up in the structure), most Iraqis would prefer a state like Iran to one like Saddam's regime. (Both, almsot certainly, would be preferred to what they have now.)
I trust modernist dictators more than I do religious lunatics. One of the reasons I rested someone better than I might have during the cold war is I knew the people in the Soviet Union with their fingers on the button expected oblivion rather than paradise if it all blew up.
Also, as I said, it has a great deal to do with what side of the Birka you are on.
None of the third world dictators have destroyed large portions of NY either. The same can't be said of the unintentional Islamist creations of right wing US Presidents.
By the way, let's not forget that in actuality, there is a large part of the population on the other side of the burka, as it's put... That actually WANT Islamic law. They WANT the veil. They DO NOT want to drive.
Yeah, I know, might sound stupid here, but it's their culture. Like an Indian woman I once met, speaking about arranged marriages... She was totally faithful to her parents making the choice. After all, she had no life experience compared to them. They were far more wise, in her eyes. To her culture, making a good marriage does not need to follow Western ideals.
The part I'm not convinced of is that the general populace is even capable of dealing with real democracy. Real representation. The culture has been under one thumb or another for soooooo long they don't even know what peanut butter is. They're actually used to dictators.
Might suck, yeah. Sure, I'd love to change it, open their eyes, as it were. Can't do that with a crowbar like the US military/coalition, though :)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2005-07-14 06:57 pm (UTC)/sings to herself
"Oh Canada..."
We're looking at PEI as a serious possibility.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-14 07:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-14 09:00 pm (UTC)Look, it's not a great situation, but it's not as if we've declared the job over and left. Democracy is going to take a while to establish itself, and in the meantime there's going to be an uneasy balance between the armed factions, the foreign military, and the government. And its far too esy to paint the picture in black and white, Shiite versus Sunni. There are plenty of Shiites who are not that conservative and who are going to buck that kind of religious government too. What the US and its allies need to do, I think, is make sure that no one faction can coerce all the others just because it has more weapons. But that's a tightrope to walk, because we can't simply disarm everyone in the country.
And the situation is at least somewhat better than it was under Saddam already. Yes, some armed conservatives are trying to force their views on others, but notice the others feel perfectly free to speak out, even to western journalists. They would rarely if ever have done that in the old days.
And, in the final analysis, we have to be prepared for the possibility that when we try to impart "democracy" to people in other cultures, they may take our model, add bits of their own, and throw away parts that we treasure. Giving people choices means accepting that they may make different choices than we would. I think part of the problem with America's own polarized electorate is that so many people on both sides simply can't accept that other people could legitimately and sincerely hold beleifs different from their own. :-(
no subject
Date: 2005-07-15 01:02 pm (UTC)As far as democracy meaning people can make choices we disagree with, democracy is only as good as its respect for basic inherent human rights. Without that, democracy is just mob rule. Not that there's going to be any democracy in Iraq. It'll be the same puppet government until we leave followed by a civil war in which if we're lucky we get a modernist dictator along Saddam's lines or if we're unlucky we get an Islamist state.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-15 01:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-15 01:25 pm (UTC)Also, as I said, it has a great deal to do with what side of the Birka you are on.
None of the third world dictators have destroyed large portions of NY either. The same can't be said of the unintentional Islamist creations of right wing US Presidents.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-15 01:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-17 12:04 pm (UTC)Yeah, I know, might sound stupid here, but it's their culture. Like an Indian woman I once met, speaking about arranged marriages... She was totally faithful to her parents making the choice. After all, she had no life experience compared to them. They were far more wise, in her eyes. To her culture, making a good marriage does not need to follow Western ideals.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-17 02:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-18 10:57 am (UTC)The part I'm not convinced of is that the general populace is even capable of dealing with real democracy. Real representation. The culture has been under one thumb or another for soooooo long they don't even know what peanut butter is. They're actually used to dictators.
Might suck, yeah. Sure, I'd love to change it, open their eyes, as it were. Can't do that with a crowbar like the US military/coalition, though :)