September 10, 2003
THE RIVER BENDS BOTH WAYS:
What Iraqis Really Think? We asked them.: What they told us is largely reassuring. (KARL ZINSMEISTER, September 10, 2003, Wall Street Journal)
Conducted in August, our survey was necessarily limited in scope, but it reflects a nationally representative sample of Iraqi views, as captured in four disparate cities: Basra (Iraq's second largest, home to 1.7 million people, in the far south), Mosul (third largest, far north), Kirkuk (Kurdish-influenced oil city, fourth largest) and Ramadi (a resistance hotbed in the Sunni triangle). The results show that the Iraqi public is more sensible, stable and moderate than commonly portrayed, and that Iraq is not so fanatical, or resentful of the U.S., after all.--Iraqis are optimistic. Seven out of 10 say they expect their country and their personal lives will be better five years from now. On both fronts, 32% say things will become much better.
--The toughest part of reconstructing their nation, Iraqis say by 3 to 1, will be politics, not economics. They are nervous about democracy. Asked which is closer to their own view--"Democracy can work well in Iraq," or "Democracy is a Western way of doing things"--five out of 10 said democracy is Western and won't work in Iraq. One in 10 wasn't sure. And four out of 10 said democracy can work in Iraq. There were interesting divergences. Sunnis were negative on democracy by more than 2 to 1; but, critically, the majority Shiites were as likely to say democracy would work for Iraqis as not. People age 18-29 are much more rosy about democracy than other Iraqis, and women are significantly more positive than men.
--Asked to name one country they would most like Iraq to model its new government on from five possibilities--neighboring, Baathist Syria; neighbor and Islamic monarchy Saudi Arabia; neighbor and Islamist republic Iran; Arab lodestar Egypt; or the U.S.--the most popular model by far was the U.S. The U.S. was preferred as a model by 37% of Iraqis selecting from those five--more than Syria, Iran and Egypt put together. Saudi Arabia was in second place at 28%. Again, there were important demographic splits. Younger adults are especially favorable toward the U.S., and Shiites are more admiring than Sunnis. Interestingly, Iraqi Shiites, coreligionists with Iranians, do not admire Iran's Islamist government; the U.S. is six times as popular with them as a model for governance.
--Our interviewers inquired whether Iraq should have an Islamic government, or instead let all people practice their own religion. Only 33% want an Islamic government; a solid 60% say no. A vital detail: Shiites (whom Western reporters frequently portray as self-flagellating maniacs) are least receptive to the idea of an Islamic government, saying no by 66% to 27%. It is only among the minority Sunnis that there is interest in a religious state, and they are split evenly on the question.
--Perhaps the strongest indication that an Islamic government won't be part of Iraq's future: The nation is thoroughly secularized. We asked how often our respondents had attended the Friday prayer over the previous month. Fully 43% said "never." It's time to scratch "Khomeini II" from the list of morbid fears. You can also cross out "Osama II": 57% of Iraqis with an opinion have an unfavorable view of Osama bin Laden, with 41% of those saying it is a very unfavorable view. (Women are especially down on him.) Except in the Sunni triangle (where the limited support that exists for bin Laden is heavily concentrated), negative views of the al Qaeda supremo are actually quite lopsided in all parts of the country. And those opinions were collected before Iraqi police announced it was al Qaeda members who killed worshipers with a truck bomb in Najaf. And you can write off the possibility of a Baath revival. We asked "Should Baath Party leaders who committed crimes in the past be punished, or should past actions be put behind us?" A thoroughly unforgiving Iraqi public stated by 74% to 18% that Saddam's henchmen should be punished.
Wanting a better, freer, more Westernized society is no guarantee that you'll be able to build one, but it's a start. Unsurprisingly, Dr. Dean--who along with 30% of the American people opposed getting rid of Saddam Hussein--seems to only have about 30% of the Iraqis on his side. Posted by Orrin Judd at September 10, 2003 11:09 AM
It's fortunate that the Iraqis, rather than being mired in theory about forms of government, have a wide variety of local bad examples to examine.
The recent interview with Salam Pax was also encouraging.
Posted by: Mike Earl at September 10, 2003 01:10 PMThere should have been some more examples, a few countries from Europe would have been nice. By the way, Dean is for staying in Iraq in order to build democracy correctly. I think he has a better shot of doing that than some guy whose first priority was no bid Haliburton contracts, overpriced by a level of 50 times...
Posted by: Philip Shropshire at September 10, 2003 05:29 PMThere should have been some more examples, a few countries from Europe would have been nice.
No constitution formed in the last 45 years is winner take all, they all, including Nicaragua, South Africa and the EU, utilize some form of proportional representation...
By the way, Dean is for staying in Iraq in order to build democracy correctly. I think he has a better shot of doing that than some guy whose first priority was no bid Haliburton contracts, overpriced by a level of 50 times...
"No constitution formed in the last 45 years is winner take all, they all, including Nicaragua, South Africa and the EU, utilize some form of proportional representation..."
Hmm. Given your examples, is that an argument for or against proportional representation?
Posted by: John Thacker at September 10, 2003 07:03 PMThe EU is doing pretty well, keep in mind that the Average European lives better than the Average American. Also, Israel wants to join the EU, not the FTAA! Remember Israel can do no wrong. As far as third world countries Nicaragua and South Africa, they are having some problems, but mostly due to the loan sharking endemic of the IMF and WTO, as people like Joe Stiglitz have pointed. Don't worry: President Dean will straighten it all out for you....
Posted by: Philip Shropshire at September 10, 2003 07:24 PMPhilip:
What color is the sky in your world?
Posted by: oj at September 10, 2003 09:41 PMA winner-take-all constitution pretty much guarentees 2 major political parties.
The danger in Iraq with that would be that if multi-ethnic parties weren't viable, you'ld get Sunni and Kurdish parties feuding and in continual opposition to the majority Shi'ite party, but I think a winner-take-all system would eventually join/splinter that down to two one way or the other. On the other hand, proportinal representation pretty much makes ethnic parties in Iraq a lock.
Actually, something like the EU - a confederation of mostly sovereign states - might not be a terrible outcome in Iraq.
Posted by: Mike Earl at September 10, 2003 10:44 PM-- keep in mind that the Average European lives better than the Average American--
And they have better healthcare, too, don't they Philip???
Ummm, Sweden would rank 49 out of 50 here. Maybe 48 if you're lucky.
Posted by: Sandy P. at September 11, 2003 02:01 AMSandy, stop reading INstapundit! The Average swede lives way wayyy better than the average Missisippian (sp?)...
By the way, when you're asking those sky color questions, please back up with facts. Tell me what a utopian experience living in the US is...No faith. No magical afterlife. Just facts...
Posted by: Philip Shropshire at September 11, 2003 04:17 AMEarl: Proportional representation creates more vital democracy because you actually have a shot of winning. That's why the Greens have 10 percent of the seats in the EU parliament. A lot of the Greens don't realize that winner take all does mean picking the worst of two bad options. In proportional representation, their 4 percent would have gotten them seats here. I happen to like democracy, preferably even direct democracy, and proportional representation creates higher voter participation from the masses, which is a good thing if you like democracy. By the way, if the Iraqis adopt a constitution that leans the US 's way, then we know the fix is in.
Posted by: Philip Shropshire at September 11, 2003 04:23 AMPhilip:
You are aware that Europe is in another recession right? That it has a declining population? That it is increasingly neutered in world politics? That 11,000 old French folk just dioed because their society is so atomized that there was no one to look after them because everyone was at the beach? That their economies and social welfare systems are increasingly dependent on young Muslim men who they can't assimilate because they believe citizenship to be a function of blood, not ideas?
What's astonishing is that a Sweden, despite many advantages--from a homogenous Lutheran population to geography--can even be compared to a MS.
Posted by: oj at September 11, 2003 08:14 AMShropshire:
Actually, winner-take-all voting (particularly when done by blocks as in US presidential elections) is almost optimal for optimizing the chance that any single vote will make a large difference in outcome, which might tend to increase participation.
In any case, it's actually mathematically demonstrable that any voting system with more than one voter produces wrong results in some cases, so don't get too excited about any of them.
Posted by: Mike Earl at September 11, 2003 08:38 AMThe EU is doing pretty well, keep in mind that the Average European lives better than the Average American
Yeah, Phil, that's why tens of thousands of Americans emigrate to EU countries every year.
Posted by: Brian (MN) at September 11, 2003 09:05 AMBrian: You might not have been here for this discussion, but that's actually true, more Americans are moving to Europe than vice versa! And yes the data has been hard for me to find. But I did read it somewheres and it makes sense.
Mike: Voter participation rates in the US are pathetic and sad compared to the rest of the industrialized world. That's because our system is worse, in fact, right now it's completely bought off. If you're interested I'll get the links for you...
OJ: We're in a recession too! Are we in permanent decline? Are you going to move to France? You guys have got to stop believing your own propaganda. Are they having problems with assimilation? Possibly, again that's not entirely a problem of old Europe. Discrimination abounds in the US...
Posted by: Philip Shropshire at September 11, 2003 10:14 AMmore Americans are moving to Europe than vice versa. And yes the data has been hard for me to find. But I did read it somewheres and it makes sense.
I bet that data is VERY hard to find. I lived in Europe for some years myself. Because in Italy, a country I know pretty well, it cost 2 lire to pay an employee 1 lira, it is unlikely that there would be much job creation (and in fact exactly the opposite), so are you saying Americans are moving to Europe to receive welfare? The Gore Vidals of the world (Vidal lived in the Origo Palace in Rome before moving to a villa in Ravello, two places where there is little work) don't have to get real jobs--so for them it's great--but most Americans would, and they're not eligible for state benefits or most legal work, so what are they doing there, Phil? Do you think they're starting businesses? How does moving to Europe "make sense" for Americans?
It is true, however, that more and more French are living outside of France.
Are they having problems with assimilation? Possibly
Not "possibly," Phil. If you've ever spent actual time in a European city, you'd know it wasn't "possibly," but the truth. In Rome, visit Tor' Bella Monaca--it isn't exactly Piazza di Spagna.
The glories of proportional representation are illustrated by the rise of the Lega Nord as well as the Greens, Phil. The Lega's slogan for the '96 elections was "un voto di piu' alla Lega, un' albanese di meno a Milano."
Posted by: Brian (MN) at September 11, 2003 10:42 AMPhilip:
we've not had a recession since 1981.
Posted by: oj at September 11, 2003 11:08 AMPhil:
Outside of England & Ireland, I think the average European stands nearly twice as high a chance of being unemployed. By the way.
And, if for no reasons other than food and weather, I doubt most would conclude the Irish and English live better than we do.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at September 11, 2003 02:50 PM