Iraq’s Path to Democracy

I’m no historian, but it seems to me the path to democracy always goes through a warlord stage. The warlords have different names in different places. In the United States we had the robber barons, media barons, unions, and organized crime who effectively controlled the government. In England they had land barons foisting the Magna Carta on the king. In modern Russia it looks as if the billionaire criminals are running the country.

It seems to me that Iraq is right on track. The country is organizing itself around warlords and clerics, and they will eventually work out truces with each other. In the long run, those warlords or their successors will find their own greatest self-interest in supporting some form of national government while maintaining local control.

As the national government grows through taxation, it eventually becomes more powerful than any individual warlord and can start picking them off one at a time, just as the government of the United States targeted the Mafia.

Is Iraq on the only realistic path that can get it to a functional democracy?

Comments

[Rap]

Democracy is a lure. Your only power is to put an X on a ballot. You don't have control on the choices offered on that ballot. You don't have control on what happens after that vote. You don't have control on the information given to you by your government. You don't have control on the media that carry this information. Some warlords are taking care of all that for you. You accept this because after all this system works fine for you, you have food, security and some fun living your life in peace. As long as warlords can make themselves wealthier each day with this system while keeping you happy, it will stay this way..

[CFluck]

At 7:52 a.m. (first post) William Smith made a good point about unions. Like the just about every facet of our great nation we must admit that at times there have been flaws with them, but generally, I agree with Mr. Smith, that unions improved things for more people than wars and that a renewed union sense of community would serve our democratic republic far better than anything called 'homeland security' or billionaire bailouts.

[Dmitry]

One more point, Scott: the "democracy" US preaches and the one US practicies are quite different things. In all cases, democracy requires a demos - wealthy citizen, and an ochlos - deprived mass. Ochlos is relatively small in the US and its voting power is neutralized by leviathanic media.

[Jesus Maria Witkenstein]

Saddam was a war lord, and he was well on his way to finding truce both between the internal tribes in his country, and between his own country and his neighbours. Iran, etc.

Now, with the US intervention, Iraq has been pushed back a hundred years, both in terms of sorting out it's internal power balance, and in terms of sorting out the power balance between itself and it's neighbours.

Put bluntly, the US intervention has been a scandal from A to Z... and not of any help to Iraq when it comes to finding internal balance. There was some sort of balance when the US attacked. Now there is close to none.

[Dmitry]

Well, you might have a point if we talk about the democracy US tries to impose on the rest of the world. But I do hope that here in Russia we will eventually jail most of them criminal billionaires and take back our wealth and our own way of life. US advisors can then shove that democracy they brought to us in the 80ies-90ies back in their neoliberal arses.

[Dip]

I'm really amazed by the myopia of the people referring patronisingly to the Indian democracy in this thread. One Ladysatel surmises that the British sucessfully planted and nurtured demnocracy in India by standing on our throats for more than 100 years. Notwithstanding the fact that she's rather less than literate in Indian history and inadvertantly correct about standing on the throat bit, she is downright oblivious to the weirdness of her statement. Do you bring power to the demos by standing on their throats? Wow.

Bringing democracy to India was never the goal of Britain. They looted us, tried to convert to Christainity, set up govermental and educational insitutions to facilitate the loot and then lost steam and went away. Of course, a sizeable British minority were really nice and they were nice in so many ways that India still honours them. But that's it.

Cut to 2008, India is a functional democracy trying to solve problems which no other country in the world faces. It has an extremely heterogenous electorate and was bogged by resource cruch for the first 50 years of independence because of a misguided dalliance with leftist ideology. And now that too is on the wane.

As for robber barons and union mafia, India has alwyas had them, but they could never dictate the result of a whole election. Locally, yes. But nationally, never.

We simply jumped headlong in democracy some 60 years ago and have been trying to better the existing systems. We haven't been completely successful, but we haven't given up either.

So Scott, no warlordism for us. A lot many other problems, yes, but no foreign political system. Direct democracy was practised in India some 2500 years ago, but then India wasn't a nation. Now it is, thanks to the British people.

Also, Indian democracy flourished after decades of patience exercised by the British government. Meanwhile, they were successful in creating an educated intelligentsia capable enough of handling the challenges of democracy although the primary objective for creating this intellegentsia, according to T. B. Macaulay, was to retain the empire. Tough luck for Iraq. Uncle Sam prefers wham, bam, where do you keep ur oil ma'am?

[TallDave]

"Examining Iraq, Sadam was a popular ruler, he was strong and secular. He didn't put up with crap from local tribes of bandits or the theocratic. He was progressive and favored education and infrastructure.

I'm not saying that he was a saint, that would be dumb. But he was not without merit. The people recognized his strength and life was better with running water and reliable electricity. The violence in the streets sharply declined and the country was becoming, slowly but surely, a safer place."

It's astonishing anyone with access to a computer could believe this.

First off, Saddam was NOT popular. He was hated by about 80% of the country (Kurds and Shia). The other 20%, the Sunni, controlled the armed forces and Saddam;s infamously brutal secret police.

Saddam's regime was a nightmare of constant war; he invaded Iran and Kuwait and had civil wars with the Shia and Kurds. Some 2 million people were killed, an average of 7,000 per month, far higher than any month of the occuption.

Infrastructure? The electrical grid steadily deteriorated while Saddam spent billions on palaces. Sewage ran in the streets of Baghdad. Education? Literacy dropped to 33%.

No free elections. No free press. Speaking against the regime could get your children raped in front of you.

And Saddam was only secular compared to the Taliban or the Iranian ayatollahs. He had a Koran written in his own blood, built hundreds of mosques, and broadcast the call to prayer on state TV (we can't even have a voluntary prayer in a public school).

Today, there is twice as much electricity generated, mostly because Iraqis are now allowed to buy electricity privately, from small generators. While state electric production is only 10% higher than prewar, overall electric production is about twice as high.

http://www.brookings.edu/saban/iraq-index.aspx

Iraq has a lot of problems, but it is much better off than under Saddam. But don't take my word for it: in recent polling, some 62% of Iraqis say removing Saddam was the right decision.

[CPB]

Scott,

Before the Magna Carta, the king had already expropriated the "land baron's" land as his own. They were just taking it back. Russia had a built-in kleptocracy that ascended to the status of "businessmen" from party hacks. Your understanding of US "robber barons" is correct only insofar as you credit their success to their abuse of government power to get what they wanted.

The only connecting thread is the abuse of government power to get what they want. It is not a sine qua non of an effectively functioning society. It is the antithesis.

[The Other Guy]

A good example for you Scott would be the unification of China from the Waring States to the First Dynasty. Where one strong warlord, through strength of arms, overcame several warlords and unified the country. This brought an end to constant war, and began an age of prosperity for the nation.

For democracy to happen, and liberal freedoms to be enjoyed by everyone, the precursor is stability. Without stability you don't have anything, something that China is acutely aware.

Change, especially turbulent change, creates opportunity. Some people will be better placed to exploit this than others. Only through stability and the rule of law can some semblance of justice be achieved.

Examining Iraq, Sadam was a popular ruler, he was strong and secular. He didn't put up with crap from local tribes of bandits or the theocratic. He was progressive and favored education and infrastructure.

I'm not saying that he was a saint, that would be dumb. But he was not without merit. The people recognized his strength and life was better with running water and reliable electricity. The violence in the streets sharply declined and the country was becoming, slowly but surely, a safer place.

Yes there were secret police. Yes there was torture. This is the middle east, not New England. Compared to Saudi Arabia, it was (in later years) fairly restrained.

For a vast majority of the Iraqi people, life was much better under Sadam than under the occupation of the USA.

So, to sum up, I agree. Centralized strength of authority is first brought about by force of arms. This leads to stability, and only with stability can anything improve.

Unfortunately the USA has no interest in stability in the region of the Middle East. One of the major benefits, from the Pro War faction's point of view, is that the region has been destabilized.

[mnuez]

You have a surprisingly optimistic view on our (American) progression!

Personally I think that in a country where hardly any of the millions of poor (Whites) vote, one can hardly say that enfranchisement is universal.

Oh, not to mention that fact that wealthy people and companies basically run the government in such a way as benefits them to the awesome detriment of anyone else (such as advertising to kids, endless boner commercials, implying that skepticism of Capitalism is somehow "unpatriotic", etc.).

mnuez
www.mnuez.blogspot.com

[samondeath]

it's stupid. Remember vietnam war
http://www.samondeath.com/2008/02/vietnam-war-history-park-1.html

[kan]

History tells, the path to democracy needs more than blood and sacrifice.

It needs determination. It needs leadership. It needs hope. It needs a dream.

If in Iraq any of the required ingredients are missing, no matter how much blood and sacrifice happens. Democracy would remain unattainable. The UN, US and other countries need to get right mix of factors in Iraq.

[Kurt]

As sure as we are all on the only realistic path to anything.

[Shashwat]

Iraq will definately turn into a paraidise for Big Oil thats for sure. A democracy, I don't know, fascist states puppetered by the U.S should be more conducive to U.S strategic and economic goals as well as for Big Business.

[Dave A]

Sorry Scott, I believe there's a typo in your original post.

...we HAD the robber barons...

should be

....we HAVE the robber barons....

Now which country was it that may be on the path to democracy?

[Bill]

Once the warlords need to borrow money to fight other warlords, Central Banking will take over Iraq.

[TallDave]

Oh, and China and Russia have just gotten to the "robber baron" stage. Most countries go through it. However, to evolve past it they will transparency and better rule of law.

As long as GDP per capita rises, people keep demanding more rights and less corruption.

[TallDave]

Yes. They would never have gotten out from under Saddam, at least not in most people's lifetimes.

You are incorrect, though, that Iraq's gov't gains power through taxation. Their power comes from oil. They generally don't bother to tax much (except punitively), because they are so poor the oil industry there is a very large fraction of GDP, as much as 90%.

BTW, Iraq's Presidential Council just approved the provincial elections, which by law must be held by Oct. This is a very big deal because the Sunnis, who had benefitted from Saddam and were 90% of the insurgents, will finally get representation after having boycotted the last elections (something Sunnis almost unanimously concede was a mistake).

Besides an average of 7,000 people a month dying, Iraqis lived in a horribly oppressive information bubble under Saddam. When we got there, they really thought we were going to steal all the oil for ourselves. It's only recently they've realized that not only are we not stealing their oil, because of our liberal democratic capitalist system we're so incredibly wealthy compared to them that stealing their oil makes no sense.

Some are starting to realize they can be wealthy without violence.

[John]

No, you definitely aren't a historian.

[Azi]

As a recently ex-Zimbabwean I have a pretty immediate perspective on this whole democracy-through-dictatorship thing. Someone else has posted that the growing middle-class is a big factor in creating a democracy and I can happily vouch for that. In Zimbabwe the government has deliberately and vindictively destroyed the middle class. There are now only the rich elite, who number in the thousands, and the poor who number in the millions. By the use of food-as-a-weapon, the current ruler (Robert Mugabe) will win and 'democratic election' hands-down. The vast majority of people are so close to the point of starvation that offering them a bag of potatoes would clinch their allegiance. (remember, this starvation is a purely political situation. It is entirely man-made).

I've got no personal experience with Iraq, but I can't think that the situation there is significantly any different... just more reported on because of America's involvement (and probably a bit more explosive, but certainly no less violent).

Without a strong middle-class desiring stability and predictability on a daily basis you can't have any kind of rational leadership. The temptation, as a ruler, to exploit is too high and the capability of your subjects to resist is minimal.

As for RavenBlack's flippant comment, consider this: Whatever the political reality - by which I mean, "whoever actually makes the decisions"- in your country, does your government actively seek out ways to disable, control and/or kill you for absolutely no reason other than that you disagree with its political agenda? I'm sure you can take an academic stance and argue that it does in subtle ways, but please pay attention to what I'm saying: The Zimbabwean government (and most likely all de facto dictatorships) is actively degrading, torturing, murdering and starving its people purely because they disagree with the politicians.

[Chenlambec]

You really missed on this topic. Only 13 comments!?

[cliffski]

iraq is not vaguely heading for democracy. Eventually, saddam would have died, and in the aftermath, its possible true democracy may have evolved. the country used to be secular, with a strong army and strong rule of law, despite a maniac as a leader.
Now there is no security, no safety, no rule of law, and the political process has become a joke. The people with power are now religious nutjobs.
If we had kept the iraqi army, government and ministers, and just killed saddam, then the country might have been able to hold together. blowing the whole government to bits and then expecting it to naturally reform did NOT work.
There will be no working iraqi democracy for at least 20 years.

[NASCAR Wife]

"In the United States we had the robber barons, media barons, unions, and organized crime who effectively controlled the government."

These groups, with the exception of organized crime, which is rightly placed outside the limits of government, are known constitutionally as competing interests. Remember the founding fathers were trying to create “a more perfect union” NOT a perfect union. Competing interests pit factions against one another for the government’s attention. The fact that each groups’ power waxed and waned (robber barons, media barons, unions…) without bloody warfare (and do not bring up organized crime, its outside the limits of government, remember?) demonstrates that our form of democracy fundamentally works.

Want a perfect union where everyone’s voice is heard equally? Want to abolish competing interests so that everyone’s voice could be heard individually? Are you willing to part with your first amendment right to freedom of assembly? The first amendment protects your right to be a member of the NRA, PTA, or NAACP. These organizations aggregate many small utterances into a large enough voice to be heard against other competing interests.

Competing interests vie for the attention of governments. A particular interest may even control the mechanisms of government for a while. However, “success breeds envy” meaning another competing interest will eventually out-compete the first in a working democracy. Competing interest are not a bug of the system, they are a feature.

[Biff]

You forgot a few other warlords that have controlled the government: lobbyists, oil companies, Halliburton...

I would go into a serious thesis on our views of democracy and the necessary parameters for such a government to exist, but this is just a comment on a cartoonist's blog.

[Haz]

Why would they want democracy? True democracy and real freedom are mutally exclusive. A true democracy is oppression by the majority.

Look at the US. If a person chose to behave in such a way as is deemed dangerous for them, it's not allowed. If anyone wants to grow marijuana, or a 17 year old wants to buy tobacco, or a 20 year old wants to buy alcohol... too bad. They don't have that freedom. Why? The majority made that choice for them.

That's democracy, not freedom.

What we want for Iraq is not freedom. We want Iraq to have a government that oppresses its people in a way similar to the way we oppress our own. Nothing more.

[theneedler]

The following are a couple of links to what I believe to be THE definitive discussion on what we really face in Iraq and Afghanistan and Darfur. It is written by Steven Pressfield who has written some great historical novels and who I believe really understands the situation based on his research for those novels. I think you might find them interesting based on your current musing. It also suggests that there is no path to democracy in any of these countries and I guess I believe what he is saying.

http://www.stevenpressfield.com/content/op-ed1.asp
http://www.stevenpressfield.com/content/op-ed2.asp

[Scott from Canada]

There won't be democracy in Iraq as long as their is oil. The government doesn't need the people's consent, or their economic contribution, to rule. That's why democratic reforms are further along in Oman and Qatar, where the oil flow has slowed. Reliance on the professional classes to stimulate the economy is what leads to democracy.

[Lord Foul]

Good question.

We Germans were once on a different path to democracy, but after the 30-Years-War devastated the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, the empire departed from the path of more diversity to slow destruction, because the local lords were getting stronger, until the Emperor settled down in the Austria of today.

The northern parts of the Holy Roman Empire, like Prussia didn´t want to be governed by some Guy down south and started to separate themselves. Then Napoleon invaded and destroyed several of the local Realms, made a few new Kings and the Empire with the really stupid long name was finally dead.

My point? Without the Thirty Years´War, maybe the slow destruction of the Empire from within would have been halted by Emperor Matthias and his successors -and the country could have had been the chance to evolve into something resembling a modern state, without the need of wars and all this nasty stuff of the past.

Of course, this is all nonsense. Ironically enough, the Thirty Years´War was foremost a religious war and the Emperors Matthias, Ferdinand II. and Ferdinand III., wo reigned during the war, were all fanatics who did there best to destroy protestantism. In the end, they did there best to destroy the country there lived in. Is there a lesson hidden somewhere, maybe?

That´s enough history for today, I think.

with fine regards,

Lord Foul

[Joe]

I agree with Conchúir, but I would prefer to elaborate.

Robber barons cropped up during the late 1800s. The United States had a function democracy for nearly 100 years before industrialization. Unions were illegal until the late 1800s. In England, the Magna Carta was essentially a bill of rights that limited the powers of the King and protected the freedoms of English citizens. It also stood as a symbol for the idea that king was bound by the law. These barons were in rebellion against a perceived unjust monarch, not warlords looking for power.

A government does not need to be controlled by warlords to become successfully democratic. However, it is impossible to have any truly democratic government. Those with power, be it wealth or elected office, will always abuse it. We have lobbyists, contractors, CEOs pushing our government around. And the only people ever elected to office are the wealthy. Iraq might be on the right track, but you can't say that it is because they are under the control of warlords and clerics. The bosses and barons that controlled our democracy were still in favor of democracy, simply one that favored their own best-interest. Iraq will not have a democracy until the people in power want a democracy - or they get overthrown.

[mwgwc]

Maybe the Iraqis don't want to be like you, why does that never occur to Americans, you are a truly amazing people, all the rest of the world are so unfortunate to not live under your style of "democracy". You are probably some of the most regulated people on the planet and yet continuously tell us and yourselves how you are "free". Give it a rest already, do some traveling outside of your borders, maybe learn another language, stop watching those ridiculously biased 24 hour propaganda broadcasts you call the news.

[Mark]

I'm not convinced that Iraq will ever get there, but I think that you're right in that it is on the only realistic and achievable course.

[Chris]

Yup, and it's been something I've been saying for a long while.

It took hundreds of years for Britain and the USA to work properly as democracies. Many countries still don't. Yet we expect Iraq to do so in the space of five years?

Ludicrous.

[Arby]

Every war has its profiteers, its warlords and other opportunistic elements. The American Revolution was no different. However, the rise of a democratic republic in America on a large scale was unique in the history of the world.

Comparing our founding fathers to the religious fanatics in the Middle East is showing a lack of understanding of what our nation is about. Apples and oranges.

[Art]

Then how come Africa hasn't made it past this warlord stage? Probably because the 'warlords' don't really have the public interest at stake, just want power, eh?

[Bear]

I'm afraid that you have Russia and the US confused. Or more probably, the billionaire criminals are running both societies.

[Jens]

I think you confuse formation of state with formation of democracy.

You might say that the former regime formed exactly in the same way, eventually growing strong enough to oppress the various ethnic and religious groups of that country. Though of course the nation was more or less founded by colonial powers and it borders drawn rather arbitrarily.

Anyway my point is that just because a state is formed, it won't necessarily be a democratic one, as history has showed us so many times.

The real question is if a democratic state will form now that the old power structure has been removed?

And what will happen when the coalition forces are eventually withdrawn?

[Tangurena]

In the west, we have the myth of Cincinatus, who George Washington - among others - greatly admired. The moral of that myth is that when it is your time to leave your public office, then you leave office.

The Arab world doesn't have that myth and while I'm not certain just what legends of power they have, it appears to me to be more like that old NRA bumper sticker: "you can have my public office when you pry it from my cold dead fingers." The presidents of Egypt only leave office in a coffin, and the son of the current president is being groomed to replace the father.

The closest model for power that I can see of in the middle east (other than Israel, which everyone in the region hates and would do the exact opposite of) would be Turkey: a fiercely nationalistic country where the military throws the government out when the government swings too far religionwards.

>...it eventually becomes more powerful than any individual warlord and can start picking them off one at a time...
I'd put it something more like to become a successful nation, one has to eliminate corruption and tribalism. One needs legends and stories of people like Elliot Ness (who wasn't really as clean and uncorruptable as the legends). A nation needs to put some effort into achieving the appearance of having uncorruptable officials, such as what Teddy Roosevelt did with NYPD.

In the US, we're reverting away from nationalism into tribalism. With junk like that "red state vs blue state" baloney. One can only rule a collection of tribes with violence and intimidation, because no tribe recognizes authority above their own.

In Iraq, we're just throwing bushels of money at everyone these days. Effectively bribing them to behave nice. That is the opposite direction of where Iraq should be heading (if the goal were to make Iraq a stable nation like we claimed we invaded it to do), but then again, the bush administration smothers everything they do with amazing incompetence and stupidity. But since their goals are now to foist the disaster onto the next presidential administration (assuming that the bush administration isn't going to declare some emergency this fall and suspend elections) so they can pretend "hey, we were winning until *those* guys took over."

[Cynical]

To become a "functional democracy" requires an educated populace - capable of critical thinking, willingness to cooperate or compromise, ability to delay gratification, and motivation to participate. As long as religion is involved, these things cannot exist. Religions, like national governments, eliminate smaller power structures because they do not like the competition.

[Jack Smith]

" It seems to me that Iraq is right on track. The country is organizing itself around warlords and clerics, and they will eventually work out truces with each other."

Your optimism appears to have no basis in fact. Warlords and clerics have ruled the middle east for thousands of years and democracy has never magically emerged. Instead, these sorts of strongmen have fought until one gains victory and imposes a dictatorship. Saddam Hussein was the last dictator in complete control. Now that we've removed him, other would-be tyrants will murder as many of their enemies as they can in an attempt to take Saddam's place. None of the leaders care about democracy.

Certainly, the USA did not reach democracy through sects and fanatics killing each other. Instead, the founding fathers established a system that allows democracy to exist. Our Constitution guarantees individual rights (such as freedom of speech and religion) and limits the power of the govenment (through elections and checks and balances). This is what allows different groups (big business and unions, blacks and whites, Protestants and Catholics, Republicans and Democrats) to promote their agendas without hatred and violence (for the most part).

If my candidate does not win the presidential election, I may not like it but I can still accept the results. I accept the results because I know I will still have my job, my religon and my life. If Iraq is to have democracy, its people must be guaranteed individual rights and leaders must respect those who disagree with them. This is unlikely to happen soon.

[WCE]

No, there's a better path, IMO, than the one you've described. It isn't a popular idea, but it'd work a lot better in the short and long runs.

It's called "Big Brother".

They've got terrorists, ideologues who are anxious to commit mass-murder/suicide, and the first step of the process to a peaceful, stable government is to find these ideologues and stop them.

The best process for that involves lots of cameras in public places, piping video feeds to lots of networked underground bunker/computer centers that have software keeping an eye on all public activities.

The ACLU would never accept such a concept here, but the Iraqis lived in terror of disappearing in the night, kidnapped by Saddam Hussein's death squads, whole families being tortured to death over someone's suspected disloyalty. Compare that to having a few security cameras in public places helping to catch people who have bombs strapped to their chests, hoping to kill as many people as possible so they can get their 72 virgins.

Cameras, software to track cars' movements and identify suspicious activities in public places.

It works even better than going the warlord-path at achieving democracy, if done right, and even when it's done wrong, it guarantees that bad people have fewer opportunities to kill innocent people.

Once the fanatics are gone, the software can be allowed to concentrate on finding drunk drivers and rapists, and people learn to keep their vices private (and the government learns that they can't afford to arrest people for victimless crimes, or they'd have nobody left out of jail).

It seems a better path to democracy to me than the current one, and it's also the fastest way we can get our troops out of there, allowing manned-checkpoints (where our troops are sitting ducks) to turn into automated, unmanned checkpoints (like fast-food drive-through lanes), to having cameras at stoplights connected to computers with software that stores everyone's movements and more software that identifies associations that make car bombs.

It takes the troops off checkpoint duty, out of harm's way, reduces the number of troops needed by allowing the software to flag the suspicious activities and those troops' duties are lower-risk, sitting at computers in underground bunkers, duties easily passed-over to Iraqi personnel once the software gets debugged and the bomb-making ringleaders are rounded up. The system becomes the backbone of law enforcement, so eventually its duties become more mundane and less "sinister".

One of the nice things about America is that there are very few crimes that would warrant the cost of such a system, and the career criminals are already committing so many blunders that our prisons are merely "time-outs" for all but the worst offenders. The ACLU will disagree, but the government has to strike a balance between protecting the rights of the civilians and protecting their lives, and it's a judgment call which is more important in some cases, but I think that most people would want their family members' lives protected moreso than their rights.

In Iraq, I suspect this balance is clearer, and they'd accept cameras in public places if it meant that American occupation forces could leave and without their country collapsing into chaos.

[Mohammad]

Scott I am very happy that you see a positive side to the Iraq war. I don't support wars and I don't say you do but It is important to notice that repressive states in the 21st century earth must change. More important, is to notice that the people in these countries can not realize this change by themselves.

There are two categories of people who do not support war. Some have stakes that war would damage (like Saddam himself or the oil companies), some just like peace because it is a less uncertain mode. Peace is less risky and these people like to play safe; they don't like to rock the boat.

People of middle east deserve democracy.

[Ozimandas]

Unlike everyone else in the world, I personally don't form strong opinions about things I dont fully understand.I guess i am good at detecting the bulshit in an argument, but i am not good at forming hasty opinions. I have heard several different sides of the argument about what to do about Iraq, and I conclude that no one on earth has enough information to make a perfectly correct descision. In the meantime, just think about this: Is an iraq democracy really what we want? There are some pretty good arguments for keeping some parts of the world destitute and resentful.

[Francesco Orsenigo]

No idea, but I hope so.

Then again, while we waste out time with such propaganda stunts as "democracy", probably Iraqi citizens have far other priorities than start choosing for the less corrupt leader, as we westerners have to do.

[dontbother]

"Functional democracy"? What in the world is that? They already vote. Big f---g deal. They voted when Saddam Hussein was their dictator. It couldn't mean something like "American-style democracy", could it? If so, it'll never happen: it just isn't Islamic enough. Or maybe Saudi Arabian democracy? Or even Iranian democracy?

All religions and ardent religionists yearn for theocratic rule. That is inherently undemocratic, but it's certainly "functional" for dictators and censors. I frankly don't give a fig what happens in Iraq. Let them be and allow the Iraqis to figure out for themselves the ways they want to die -- oops, I meant to say: "the way they want to organize their government".

[bobnl]

What will happen in Iraq is beyond my comprehension. The path that you describe has happened in several countries, yes. In other countries however the 'warlords' just stay where they are and make sure that the government does not gain so much power. (You could look at several countries in Africa for this.)
In this context: beware of Libertarians. They too want the government to be less powerfull. A democratic government may have its problems (they're only human) but it is the best thing we have come up with so far.

[GeoffB]

Jimgram asks:

How do other countries (present day Iraq included) end up with a democracy when the possibility always exists that an articulate,charismatic, 'war lord' abuses power and trust of the people?

If I read this correctly, France should have just stuck with the monarchy because the emergence of Robespierre, Napoleon and Napoleon III after people's revolutions prove that the 5th Republic can't actually have happened.

Every form of government has its weaknesses. But democracy, at least when we get lucky, is pretty good at changing governments and transferring power without a lot of bloodshed. Does it always come quickly or easily? Well, it took the French at least until after WWII - quite some time after 1789! - to make it look like democracy was the default position, not just something that came up in the rotation every so often. But it was arguably worth the wait. Likewise with Iraq.

[Robert]

I'm starting to think of you as a Cartoon Baron.

[Irwin]

Japan underwent "revolution from the top" after WWII under the fist of Douglas MacArthur.

I believe his was the model Bush hoped, unsuccessfully, to replicate.

[Akira]

And how will they throw off US domination and oppression

[Darth Geoff]

It's a good theory because one major advantage the western democracies have over the rest of the world is the realisation that government is the best way to control people and exert power. Failure to recognise this will be the undoing of the Chinese Communist Party, for example. The CCP thinks it has to control every action and thought of every citizen, so that's why they go ballistic whenever someone looks up YouTube. But in fact all they need to do is control the money, which is all that matters. In the U.S. people have all the freedoms in the world, including to own a lot of guns and kill themselves and others, but try not paying taxes and see what happens to you. One theory is that taxation is the greatest tyranny.

[Ward]

Or it could go the other way around. One warlord kills off enough others grab exclusive access to the oil money, can field more thugs and becomes the new Sadam. Kind of repeating history ?

[cynic]

The US is not a democracy. It is a Republic.

[Ron]

"Functional" and "Democracy" are two words that don't really go together. Democratic government is based on the idea that most of the people know what they really want and need, and how to best accomplish it, most of the time. You don't have to be much of a historian to figure out this is virtually never true, especially not in something as large as an entire nation.

If you mean a "republic" - a form of oligarchy where the members are chosen to be somewhat representative of particular people in the society ... that's another question. Then, "functional" can be defined either as "working" or "representing most of the people". In the case of the U.S., neither definition of "functional" seems to be working out... and to judge from U.S. foreign policy, they seem determined to inflict this defecit on everybody else in the world as well. By that definition, most military and terrorist governments are "working" and represent some of the people, but only fail in that they represent relatively few of the population. Oddly enough, the U.S. moves in Iraq seemed to be aimed at trading one definition of "working" for the other - making it more representative but non-functional.

Odds are, whatever path Iraq is currently on, military force applied by homocidal nutjobs will probably eventually beat out military force applied by self-serving blowhards, and Iraq will end up back in the hands of total fruit-loops. May take a few years... but the current policy of delaying that by cutting deals with the fruit-loops is exactly that - a delaying tactic.

And "democracy", by the actual definition of the word, is a flawed premise to begin with. Some forms of "republic" can work, sometimes - but the odds tend to be against them really working out like you might prefer.

[T4.Forever]

Your Blog is very nice!
If you don't busy, you can visit my blog: http://chemgiothanhbao.net/blog/
Good luck to you!

[T4.Forever]

Your Blog is very nice!
If you don't busy, you can visit my blog: http://chemgiothanhbao.net/blog/
Good luck to you!

[T4.Forever]

Your Blog is very nice!
If you don't busy, you can visit my blog: http://chemgiothanhbao.net/blog/
Good luck to you!

[Jim Peters]

Yes i agree
Jim Peters
jimpeters15@freenet.de

[usetafish]

My thoughts on Democracy...In this country we are all "free" to walk into a grocery store and purchase whatever we so desire. However, untold gobs of money are "invested" into advertising, research, and implementation of policies that influence our final choice. From TV commercials that turn our chirldren into "I want robots" to the proper height and distance from the door any particular item is located. I would love for some one to tell me how this differs from our current government struture (preferably before November).

(btw Scott, is the "Cheese Factory" still open. I used to love that place when I lived there.)

[D-Man]

I think you're overlooking that several democracies, functional or not depending on one's opinion, did not go through a warlord phase as you describe it. I'm feeling lazy today, so go browse wikipedia and you'll find that its a mixed bag.

For what it's worth, many colonial powers "imposed" their form of government on others using a top-down method. All of those colonies eventually ended up democratic, running things themselves.

I don't think that Iraq will naturally end up as a democracy, especially in the current climate. The seeds just aren't there. The middle-class is powerless and impotent. I think that top-down is their only chance.

http://www.nonotagain.com/

[Devon]

Democracy has no hope in any country where Islam has a strong hold on the masses....it would be like trying to transplant democracy onto a bunch of marxists or nazis...it simply is impossible!!

[Andy Coulter]

you really hammered the fenders to make it fit in the garage.

[Bob]

Most of what you list as problems in America was caused by governments granting monopolies or subsidies, or otherwise interfering with a free market. Railroads, land, spectrum, oh - and granting the entire alcohol market exclusively to organized criminals was a real coup. So great that we do it now with recreational drugs. Hopefully we can do it with guns in the future, since it has worked so well with everything else. It's always important for criminals to have a large, lucrative market that legit companies are forbidden from competing in. Keeps crime up, and people in prison where they belong. America: 1% in prison, 99% to go.

[Dave]

What d'you mean, "we had the robber barons, media barons, unions, and organized crime who effectively controlled the government."

The only one we lost was organized crime. We still have the others holding fast to their power.

[Dave]

What d'you mean, "we had the robber barons, media barons, unions, and organized crime who effectively controlled the government."

The only one we lost was organized crime. We still have the others holding fast to their power.

[the_brett]

We're not a Democracy. We're a Republic....completely different philosophies.

[Grant K.]

While every growing nation has lawlessness Scott, not every lawless nation grows into a democratic nation.

Just look at Afghanistan post Soviet Invasion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war_in_Afghanistan

[Patrick Fitzsimmons]

Democracy occurs when military power is concentrated in the hands of the populace. Every example of naturally evolved democracy is this case. In Rome and Greece, the hoplite army realized they didn't have to obey the king, because they had the power. They set up a democracy as a way to manage power among citizens. In the United States, military power concentrated in the militia. The militia over through the state governnors. In Europe, when Nationalist mass armies replaced state funded mercenaries, they got democracy.

In the Middle East, military power is paid for by whoever owns the oil (or the military seizes the oil and becomes the government). You'll never have a democracy in that situation.

Also, in general, democracy is a terrible government for heterogenous states. In a democracy, allocation of nationwide resources are up for grabs at every election. Unless you have a broad based national consensus, democracy is a recipe for civil war.

[Bloodboiler]

Exactly who will the national government tax in your theory. Warlords don't pay taxes and ordinary Iraq citizens don't have anything to give. Furthermore, most warlords operating in Iraq now are companies with more power than Iraq government can ever hope to have.

I plan to become an unknown blog comment prophet who's predictions are some day found to be much more accurate than anything Nostredamus's wrote. So here goes.

Before long China stops funding US and dollar becomes toilet paper.
Blackwater and other mercenary companies only fight when they are paid, so US-Iraq war ends immediately. However, these companies are in excellent position to take control of Iraq oil resources, so the war becomes mercenary & oil companies vs. Iraq citizens war.
Since companies have absolutely no incentives to pretend to care about human right or international law, they start using the most cost effective weapon available. Going directly to "final solution" would be bad for PR reasons, so they just create a security perimeter with scorched earth tactics. Then its just a matter of broadening the perimeter over time. And history will have its first privately funded genocide.

[Sam]

I don't think that Iraq will ever be a proper democracy because that kind of government goes against how they have lived for thousands of years. You can't expect a group of people to live one way for centuries, and then try to do a complete 180 on them.

You might as well say "Britain will never be a democracy because of the divine right of kings (or of the beaker people, or of whatever)". Of course it takes time to change any society dramatically.

(Incidentally, you more or less have to start with strong property rights in order to get anywhere useful.)

[cr steussy]

Nope. Sorry. I know you want it to be the case but it just doesn't add up. First of all you skip rather briskly over the current mess in Iraq and it being warlordism. We can't swallow that hook line & sinker. Secondly I would also question your analogy to warlords and robber barons who of course existed after the framework of democracy had been in place for a hundred years and we had such niceties as the Bill of Rights and the tradition of judicial review.

[Geoff Tober]

I am glad to see the usual hysterical reactions to anything Iraq are still intact. Is Iraq on the right path to democracy? Any path to democracy is the right path. America followed one path, and instilled it upon themselves. France/Germany and most of the rest of Europe followed another path, and needed help when it was taken from them. Russia is actually finally beginning to make some sense of their country and China is slowly becoming more democratic by the simple fact that they are disseminating power to their people via capitalism.

I would argue EVERY country is better off than their alternatives, yet not one of them were/are on the same "path" to democracy. If the usual hysterics of Bush terrorizing women and children are ignored it seems to be a pretty easy conclusion. Yes, Iraq is on the right path.

Any commentary wrt. the people of Iraq being too dysfunctional to accept democracy is so far off the mark it's laughable. Who wouldn't choose a free and just society (comparatively) to a dictatorship. Iraq may be dysfunctional, but they're not stupid.

(BTW Scott. I would be interested to read your rationale as to why these 'warlords' and such would actually support some form of central government. It seems like they would oppose that at all costs. Like the goings on in Africa.)

[pooper725]

Yes - I think you're right.

The problem is that Iraq should be three separate countries, not one. (Bush and every single one of his advisors failed to recognize this.)

Witness how Yugoslavia fell apart (complete with ethnic cleansing) after Tito died.

[Brian]

I love Dilbert, and most of your blogs try to be insightful, but I'd like to know at what point you think that the Mafia created the U.S. democracy. I know that's not all you said, but I hate to tell you that for the most part, your comments about the U.S. are wrong. There are arguments that the U.S. wasn't a functional democracy until every citizen of age had the right to vote, but that's not what your getting at at all. I think you could have ended this post after the first clause: "I'm no historian."

[Karl H.]

"In the long run, those warlords or their successors will find their own greatest self-interest in supporting some form of national government while maintaining local control."

Well, that's basically what Saddam Hussein had going until the US invaded Iraq, overthrew his warlord regime and executed him. Now the Iraqis have to start the process all over again. Great job!

[Robert]

"In the United States we had the [...]"

Um, "had"?

[Dan S]

Saddam held elections - how was it different with him as the biggest warlord, except there was less overall violence when he was in charge?

Note that I'm not defending him as a leader - just pointing out that we have managed to make things even worse than a bloody dictator did.

[Kent McManigal]

Since democracy is really only mob rule, I'm not so sure it matters.

[RedBull]

No.

[Surely U. R. Mad]

I think that the same could also be said about a path *away* from democracy. The difference is whether any one warlord, or small consortium of warlords can muster the strength to suppress the others. If they do, then it could head to another dictatorship.

If no warlord can garner that strength, then he will need to work with others to protect his own interest. At some point, this will fail, with the result either being a democracy or an autocracy.

[diego]

200 years ago, the George Bush of that time (Napoleon) tried to invade and modernize Spain. At that time, Spain was governed by the king and a bunch of priests. Spain was declining - we had been an empire, but the bad government was only making things worse, censuring the new ideas of the enlightenment. So Napoleon tried to put a modern government: a king (his brother) and a constitution - a system a bit more modern than ours, one that would make spain work better, with the help of our own king, that did like to suck napoleon's dick.

"Theorically" napoleon wanted to modernize spain, make it a modern nation, instead of a declining one. But he also wanted to use Spain resources (we were still powerful: a half of a empire and a half of a empire makes an entire empire - and napoleon wanted to use our strength for his own plans)

But spaniards didn't like being controlled by a foreigner. So the people (and when i say the people, i mean that it was the people), influded by the conservative speech of priests, started a revolution. We won - today we call that war "The independence war"

Napoleon was planning to use our strenght, yes, but the government he'd have put to take our strenght would have been good for Spain - he'd have brought the Enlightenment to Spain. But spaniards preferred their conservative, medieval government to what Napoleon was bringing, because he was "invading" the country.

200 years later, George Bush is trying to get Irak's resources to sustain EEUU's plans, and he also is doing it with the excuse of "modernizing" the country with a modern government. But it seems that some irak people prefers a radical muslim government before seeing a foreigner "invade" his country. Not surprising.

[Phillip]

My comment to the first poster: WE are NOT killing Iraqi civilians. I'm over there right now, and I'm glad to say that we are not killing Iraqi civilians. Get your facts straight before you post.

[Bill B]

Don't be so damn sure that democracy is an end point. Primitive societies tend to be fairly democratic with leaders who are respected, but can be challenged. As societies become more complex and richer, there develops a divide between the rich and poor, and rich equates with powerful. You need only look to history to see that the powerful almost always oppressed the rest. I remember learning that the "nobility" in Europe developed from families with enough wealth to buy the weapons and armor to have their own personal armies, not unlike an early mafia. Some may have become benign but many remained ruthless until fairly recently.

When a society becomes rich enough, a middle class develops, unless that tendency is actively suppressed. When the middle class becomes powerful enough, they reach a point where the rich can no longer keep them down. The rich are also likely to be educated and know history, so they have to know that this process exists and they are certain to react to it. What happens next depends on how they react.

In France, in the 18th century, this erupted in revolution and some heads rolled. This happened in Russia early the last century. I don't think they beheaded anyone, but some wound up just as dead. It hasn't happened here, probably because the middle class has felt safe and secure and does not generally feel oppressed. That could easily change. The difference between the pay of workers versus managers has been expanding and benefits have become less of a sure thing. There's a lot more uneasiness about employment and economic security than at any other time since the depression, yet we see corporate heads walking away from decimated companies with hundreds of millions that most of us believe is undeserved. Most of us seem to feel the captain SHOULD go down with his ship, not take the only lifeboat and flip us the finger as we go down.

Democracy is not all that stable. Realistically, democracy can only work on a small scale, up to a village, perhaps. Beyond that, the closest you're apt to get is a republic, which is what we currently have. In this case, the majority give the control of the power to a small number of selected people who we trust will not misuse it. If they fail to earn our trust, we need to dump them, or the republic will decay into dictatorship or some other far less desirable form for most of us. Unfortunately, human nature tends to make this change happen. The rich want to be richer, the powerful want to be more powerful and they all want to keep their wealth and power, which is in opposition to them giving us the government we are supposed to have. As long as the electoral process can be trusted and people are sufficiently informed, a balance can be maintained. Just remember, the rich and powerful have a tremendous edge in this balance and if they choose to not be benign, it can be very messy to unseat them.

On the other hand, a dictatorship can be remarkably stable, at least through the lifetime of the dictator. Here, succession frequently makes the whole thing blow up, but even when the leader is strong, this can go bad.

I don't think Iraq is ready for what we choose to call democracy. There will be too much religious influence, like in neighboring Iran, and too much tendency for elected leaders to become dictators. Wasn't Saddam Hussein elected? Not that there was any chance he'd lose.

[Lagerlof]

I'm sure you've seen this, but here is a link to an article on flying eagle rays taking out boaters, a la sturgeon. First the fish, now the rays? And these are just the eagle rays. Wait until the death rays come after us, and see who's laughing. I am hiding at an elevation of about 4500 feet, but you'd better watch out in Frisco. http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN3K32064420080320

[YoHo]

The Warlords-Feudal Lords-King-Parliament-Universal Sufferage continum only exists when one has a culturally homogenous society, or a very dominant one.

[Allen Anderson]

We never went through a warlord stage. The English government organized us into the thirteen colonies. All of those colonies got tired of British rule, so they decided to band together and rebel, until eventually England got tired of the war. Then all the states decided to band together for political/economic reasons. Through time they developed a centralized government. Every state is it's own democratic nation, as proved by the civil war, when a few states decided they no longer wanted to be part of the union. And the other mini countries decided to attack them, overthrow their leaders, and replace them with leaders who were more likely to do their bidding.

Of course, all reforms are brought about by rebellion. No government is going to allow a revolution. Iraq already rebelled against their government, and overthrew Saddam Hussein. Right now it's a combination of anarchy and mob rule. We still have a long ways to go.

[James]

You speak as if democracy were the endpoint of history toward which all countries are inevitably progressing.

Iraq's weak national government is headed for a complete overthrow by another strongman dictator.

If you insist on thinking that democracy is the end of the political road, at least recognize that Iraq is in for a long detour in the opposite direction.

[chromepoet]

Nothing more true than paradox, nothing more funny than truth.

[David]

Are you assuming that the "warlord stage" inevitably leads to pluralistic democracy? That seems like a pretty big assumption. Second, is not the idea that a centralized government will grow with tax receipts an even bigger assumption? It seems like you are projecting other historical circumstances onto Iraq willy-nilly.

[Lewis]

Iraq isn't on the path to democracy. As long as their government has oil money as a source of power, they will never have to use the actual support of the people for legitimacy. Instead, they can just buy off certain groups like the military, and maintain their power.

[patti]

Patti adds:
Gee, Do you mean that the Mafia is gone? ..lol
Chances are, my Scotty, pretty slim.
And do you know WHY??
Cause' it is taking so long to pick-them-off ….one by one... that there are new ones being born every day!

UNLESS … OHhhhhhhhhhh Maaaaybe you meant,
Can we Pi$$ them off ...one by one????????
Yeah, I believe that we HAVE done that.
I see those pit-bosses (somewhat like pit-bulls) watching people closely at the craps table when I visit Vegas. I don't see their pearly-whites too often. I see arms folded and frowns if someone is winning.
I see some nods and fixed eyes and then sometimes a tap on the dealers shoulders at the black-jack table too.
AND? I see players disappear from those tables every now and then. Of course, I don't know if they left of their own free will or they were asked to step into some backroom office where James Caan is waiting.
Organized crime exists. It is lurking everywhere.
Geesh...Scott.
I even think the Internal Revenue hires those big-apes to scare and strong arm us.
Last time the IRS audited me.. the audit arrived on a platter with a horses head!

[Aervanath]

There is no guaranteed path to democracy, and the warlord phase is probably the least sure. To pick the biggest example: China has been through warlord stages several times over it's millenia-long history, and, yes, each time, a national government arose that was strong enough to pick off the warlords one by one. But that government was never democratic, and it isn't today, either. The strange thing is that China today is as close as it's ever been to democracy.
For some countries, such as Japan, democracy was imposed from the outside, and in others, such as India and other former European colonies, it was organized under the guidance of the former colonial master.
In many countries, democracy is subverted by a warlord or junta, gathering all the power of the national government into one person's hands. Just look at how Hitler came to power. Germany was a democracy and he was elected in a democratic election. And then look what happened. (On a completely unrelated note: How far is Bush going to push the bounds of "executive privilege"?)
So, to sum up:
1)There is no single "path to democracy".
2)None of the paths to democracy are any more likely to succeed than any other.
3)There are just as many paths out of democracy as there are into it.
4)I didn't intend to write this much when I started.
Cheers.

[Claudio]

Scott, it looks like you are ignoring Iraq's past history and pretending that everything happens in a linear fashion, instead of cyclically. Iraq had democracy (several times) in the past. Democracy is not a Superbowl ring, that you win once and for all: you have it, and it's not easy to retain. Germany had a democratic government before Hitler; Italy before Mussolini. And since somebody else wrote already that "Functional democracy on a national scale, I think, is a myth", I cannot but notice that the barons phase is back in the US: never seen a place where supporters with large pockets are such a good indicator of an election victory. It happened with President Bush, who returned all favors to his sponsors. It will happen again.

[Lagerlof]

No. Islam, in its various forms and infightings, will not permit any real developments without unification or the destruction of all opposition to a given sect.

[Sam Thornton]

Who says Iraq wants or needs a "functioning democracy?" It's all just jingoistic piffle. The kind of government Iraq evolved for itself before our invasion was a Stalinist dictatorship. Worked then, why not now?

[rpk]

Iraq was cobbled together by outsiders and needed a strong, if not brutal, government to hold it together. For all his faults, Saddam Hussein was able to keep the country in one piece. Without that type of 'leadership', Iraq seems destined to dissolve into a Kurdish region, a Sunni region, and a Shiite region.

If another strongman arises to prevent it, or the people of those areas decide that it is to their mutual benefit to stay together Iraq could survive intact. I'd put my money on another dictator rather than those groups of people voluntarily coming together for the common good.

[Dave]

>Is Iraq on the only realistic path that
>can get it to a functional democracy?

Yes.
And it's a long one.
So quit yer whinin'.

[Sam Davis]

One of our delusions is that democracy, in and of itself, will guarantee stability and freedom. It doesn't. In fact, unitary majoritarian democracies usually end in autocracy and dictatorship.

There are a plethora of examples of this, including the unfortunate German Weimar Republic, and prior to that two attempts at French democracy ending with an autocrat named Napoleon.

What is needed instead is the rule of law, transparent administration of justice and a free market system. Democratic institutions will evolve as a natural result.

The warlord analogy, while it makes for fun reading, doesn't really hold. The English warlords who forced Magna Carta on King John, for instance, were not bad guys at all: they established the legal principle of limited executive power and the right of habeas corpus. The other "warlords" mentioned served differing functions. None of the American "warlords" had anything to do with adopting the Constitution or the first principles behind it.

The Iraqi warlords, unlike our American ones, pre-date both the current Iraqi government and any other regime since the days of the Baghdad caliphate, a period of a thousand years or more. They are tribal or religious-sect based or both. Without a dramatic change in Iraqi culture, they will continue to operate their small fiefdoms independently, doing whatever they must to minimize the writ of any national Iraqi government.

That makes building a stable Iraq impossible without creating a culture of respect for the rule of law and civil society. That is a change that cannot be imposed by outside military intervention nor, indeed, by any form of coercion. It will come as a result of free trade, unrestrained movement of people, educational and cultural exchange, all flowing from a shift in the culture of the Iraqi people.

Another factor has to do with the Kurds in northern Iraq. They do not think of themselves as "Iraqis" at all, and never have. Unlike most other Iraqis, they are not Arab and their take on Islam is quite different as well.

The Kurds are artificially trapped in a "nation" created from a remnant of the old Ottoman empire at the end of World War I. They already have a stable society, and a nascent market economy flourishing. They should be allowed to separate from Iraq. It would allow the Kurds to build a freer and more stable country, and actually help the remainder of "old Iraq" do so as well by removing this particular ethnic tension from the political table.

[Bruce Harrison]

Back to civics class with you! We're not a democracy, we're a republic, and so is Iraq.

Republics provide important safeguards from acceding to the passion of the moment, while still placing power in the hands of the people. It seems most modern republics have resulted from armed revolution or have been imposed after a dictatorial country loses a war. At the same time, the resultant government appears, at least as far as we know now, to be stable, but with a potentially fatal flaw (see below). Our own republic, the oldest constitutional republic in modern times, has been around for over 230 years.

You are correct in saying that "As the national government grows through taxation, it eventually becomes more powerful than any individual. . ." As Alexis de Tocqueville said many years ago, "The American Republic will last only until its politicians discover that they can bribe their people with their own money."

Or, as the famous quote attributed to various individuals including Sir Alexander Tytler goes, speaking about why a republic can't exist for a long term: "It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that such a government always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."

The point being that a government who controls an ever-increasing chunk of its population's wealth slowly becomes a dictatorship. When it reaches a certain critical mass, the majority of people stop looking to themselves, because the burden placed on them by government when they succeed is too great, and start looking to government. At that point, they begin to vote for the people who will give the most of other people's money to them.

This only works if three things happen: first, total taxation must be approaching 50%; second, those who pay the majority of taxes must be a minority of the population, and those who become dependent upon government benefits must be a majority; and finally, people must be convinced that those who are paying the taxes don't really deserve the money - the group paying the majority of the taxes has to be identified as a villain who has unfairly taken the money from the remaining Balkanized population. Otherwise, people begin to realize that taking money from one person and giving it to another is what is commonly called "stealing."

Voila! You now have a dictatorship in the guise of a republic. Aren't we glad that could never happen here?

[Thomas]

I'm just not all that convinced that "democracy", as its currently practiced, is the way to go, anymore even for America. Look at the cruel joke our elections have become. All pols are thieving, lying, criminal bastards, and the "race" is only to see which set of thieving, lying criminal bastards gets to "rule" over the rest of us plebes. 230 years of this and we have taxation at 40% or more of GDP (at all levels), we're regulated to death, our debt is ungodly, and our very currency is rapidly becoming useless. This is the result of "public ownership" of the government, something the Founders wisely wanted to avoid. We were arguably better off when the government was "privately owned", as monarchs only soaked the country for 5-8% of the GDP.

A guy named Hans-Hermann Hoppe wrote extensively about this. Check him out.

[Dave]

I think it depends on the warlords and clerics themselves, and how open they are to dialogue and change.
The former Yugoslavian countries have successfully moved through the Warlord stage, and are couple of steps further up on the scale than Iraq towards a functioning democracy.

Without a willingness for dialogue or peace it can easily stagnate on the warlord level e.g. Sudan and Somalia.

I think there are ways to move from dictatorships or repressed societies to functional democracies without going through the warlord stage. India , South Africa and the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine are examples and maybe Russia.

I think in these cases the crimelords and business criminals that emerge could have been the warlords and clerics on the other path.

[Wombat]

"Maybe the only way to avoid the unpleasant warlord phase is to get the other side to actually surrender when they lose a war. It looks like it worked in Japan and Germany -- not sure about Italy though."

Or Iraq. GWB assumed that the war would end when he said it would.
Trouble was, there was no government around to surrender to the 'liberators' nor any unifying authority to make such a surrender stick; we had wiped it out and told the whole government apparatus to go home and not come back.

At the end of WWII, the allies kept the German civil going, which is why the country stayed stable.

[Nathan]

Is democracy even the real goal? I would say that most people would be content with stability and security over democracy (as evidenced by sub-50% voter turnouts in the most stable and secure countries). Really, I think a lot of people would be happy with the warlord that said "As long as you shut up and do what you're told I will make life as comfortable as possible for you".

So really, if the warlords do their best to limit collateral damage (which is in their best interests), I don't think people will complain, and democracy will be mostly ignored in no time.

[Proxy]

The only problem is that most of Iraq's growth and introduction to a "proper democracy" is due to the US' presence. I believe as soon as US leaves the rest of the growth up to the people of Iraq and the leaders that US will put into office the Country itself will be up for grabs. Just like Vietnam, quick and horrible.

[dh]

assuming the warlords aren't powerful enough (either individually or collectively) to keep the government powerless. feels kind of strange to say it, but in the case of Iraq, the US military presence might the one thing allowing the Iraqi gov't to gain enough power (money + men with guns) to keep the warlords at bay. this is all assuming

- The assumed final goal (stable democracy in Iraq) is even desirable
- the Iraqi gov't is competent enough to not collapse upon itself (look at the gov't they're modeled after, but without the empire's worth of treasury and inertia)

eh, I dunno

[Kaelk]

I disagree that Iraq will never have a functional democracy just because of how they've been for however long. Look at Japan for instance, who's Democracy wasn't even formed until 1945, and then it was forced on them, and yet now they are one of the most successful nations in the world.

However, people can't expect it to be an overnight change. Japan was occupied for 7 years. I believe Iraq can become a democratic nation. It won't be an American democracy, but neither is Japan's, England's, France's, etc... when compared. Other nations have proven that they can shrug off their past government and accept a new form, especially after the people have been oppressed.

[Gabriel]

Not really. Brazil never went to warfare, and is a democratic state. there´s always a peacefull way out. sometimes it´s really harder, and not feasable.

I don´t think Iraq will stay much like an Iraq country after it went into all this. Probably it will become a puppet.

Just a thought, Cuba was just a puppet just before Castro arrived. Maibe some places are not meant to become democratic.

[paki]

That might be true but a bigger question is why is everyone in western world assuming that democracy is the right way of governance for all societies. Just like for kids, some decisions need to be made by their parents, for immature societies, its better not to hand that decision making responsibility/authority in their own hands. Some societies have advnaced in maturity by way of having prosperity which has provided luxury of producing more thought leaders that have helped mature the entire society where as some others were not as fortunate and lag in that respect. Iraq, pakistan, iran, syria, to some extent India, China fall in that category with varying degrees of maturity but still not mature enough to handle democracy. Don't force it on us. we are the babies who are learning to walk, don't try to put us on trademills so we develop the six packs. we will fall down and you can be free to say "Well we got them the mst advanced trademill. What else can we do if they are not ready to run on it?" We are not asking for trademills, we are not yet ready to run, leave us alone to learn to walk holding on to any tough railing we can lean on.

[the man in the trout mask]

When I think of "Iraq on the road to Democracy" I salivate.

What does that mean?

[DF]

They have to fend for themselves. Shoving a democracy on them without them learning why they need a democracy will only plunge them into chaos.

Cuba does not have a democracy, is it such a bad place? Wait, I forgot, you guys in the US aren't allowed to visit there. And I suppose if all you do is read what the media and government feed you about Cuba, you might not like it.

In the end, maybe democracy is not the right choice for them. Letting the people think for themselves in a very religious area of the world could be bad.

[The Dude]

Well for one thing the US is NOT a democracy, we are an elitist autocracy and getting moreso every day. If we were a real representative democracy then the voice of the people would be better represented in Washington which it is not.

That being said I think Iraq could be a democracy one day, I'm not sure it will happen in our lifetime though. The problem is that our leaders don't want Iraq to be its own democracy we want them to be a US friendly pseudo-democracy. Add to that the fact that we the people were misled into this war in the first place and you start to understand why there is so much outrage over the issue. Had this war and occupation been better planned and had we been given an accurate outlook of the situation it would have never been ok'd. If this war and occupation had been accurately planned the powers that be would have realized that it would take 3-6 months to oust Saddam, then it would take a couple of years to get the "rebels" under control (we are just getting to this point now) then it would take another 10-15 years (minimum) to really get the government to a point where it can function on it's own.

The formation of the US government was easy compared to Iraq, we already had a model government to follow, we had the ability to meet (sometimes secretly) with some assemblance of order to work out some of the details of our government prior to our declaration of independence from our rulers. Iraq didn't get this time, they were immediately thrown into a state where the previous government was gone and they had to work on putting a new one together that pleased the occupiers (us).

The deck is currently stacked against Iraq and I'm not really sure what's going to happen when Bush leaves office.

[David Taylor]

Right idea, wrong about the societal development cycle. It tends to go like this:

Tribalism->Warlordism->Religionism->Nationalism->Modernism

Thugs and fanatics always emerge, and always attack at a more primitive level. So you can have a fully functioning republic that still has Crips and Bloods.

The key indicators are wealth per capita and tolerance of difference. Even when gangs were shooting up Chicago, the USA as a whole was growing the middle class and importing immigrants. China is still communist, but freedom is increasing each day along with income and diversity.

Iraq is way off track. Arab society has barely made the transition from warlords to clerics. They are stuck where Europe was in 1500.

Oh, great! You've invented a
new politicial philosophy,
"warlordism".

This will go over very well
in places like Somalia, where
your philosophy merely
describes what they're already
doing. You'll be hailed as
making Karl Marx obsolete.

You can make it more appealing
by describing predictions of
warlordism. For example,
warlordism is an intermediate
stage toward corrupt
capitalism, like in Japan.
The Somali warlords probably
would like to fancy themselves
as modernizers of their
society in that way.

But before you write the
Warlordist Manifesto, more
research is needed on a few
points. For example, what is
the role of bribery in a
warlordist society? Not, of
course, whether or not bribes
will be paid, but to whom,
how much, and how are they
distributed up the food chain.

What are the benefits of
warlordism as a form of