January 30, 2004

MOVING TO THE SIDE OF THE ROOM:

As US exits, can Iraqis deliver?: An occasional series following two local councils in Baghdad. (Dan Murphy, 1/30/04, CS Monitor)

Capt. Roger Maynulet didn't know that liberating Iraq would involve so many photo ops. Yet here he is in a baroque Arab wedding hall in Baghdad for the Hay Somer neighborhood council Christmas party, and he's just upstaged "Papa Noel." Sitting in the bower where newlyweds usually receive their guests, the burly Maynulet is besieged by excited kids clambering over him while laughing parents snap pictures. In between shots, council members and residents whisper in his ear, pressing ideas for neighborhood improvements but also eager to be seen with the American soldier.

This is the occupation the US war-planners had promised, tangible evidence of Iraqis and Americans working towards a better future. But the good feeling in Hay Somer conceals a looming danger for America's most ambitious nation-building project since the end of the cold war.

Across Iraq, the US military has set up hundreds of local councils to serve as the building blocks for Iraq's new political culture. But the Councils have been reliant on their military patrons for what little progress they've made.

A close look at two Baghdad councils - Hay Somer, a middle class neighborhood that is almost half Christian, and Sheikh Maruf, a scruffier and mostly Shiite area - shows that Iraq is filled with courageous people committed to the idea of democracy, but that their efforts are opposed by powerful institutions and habits that can't be changed overnight. [...]

In the months ahead, the Monitor will track these two councils as a window into this process. The slow withdrawal of the US presence in Iraq will change the way the councils work; Maynulet and his counterparts across the country are slowly pulling back from their councils, weaning them from their reliance on US military support.

But with some apprehension. In Hay Somer, Maynulet says he's been gratified by the steps taken so far. "When this started, it consisted of me sitting at the head of the table and basically telling people how things were going to be,'' he says. "As we've gone forward, they've taken more of the initiative and now I'm sitting at the side of the room."

But he's also worried about whether the council is ready to take the last step, and stand up to central government institutions designed to dictate to citizens, rather than to cooperate and listen. "The big question is how much authority the [councils] will be able to carve out for themselves," he says. "The refusal of the municipal government to work with them has been a recurring problem."


Not to suggest that the stages of democratic development are similar, but one does wonder how the Founders were able to hold the whole American experiment together when they were basically making it up as they went along.

Posted by Orrin Judd at January 30, 2004 7:20 AM
Comments

They did not make it up as they went along.

Here in Virginia the (white, male, landed) citizens had been electing a legislature for 160 years prior to the revolution. There were viable local county and town governments throughout the eastern part of the Commonwealth. (George Washington broke into politics by getting elected to the legislature from my home town of Winchester - I beleve he won 67 to 17, free booze being part of the enticement.)

The other colonies had less lengthy but similar traditions of well established democratic institutions. During the wars of the early eighteenth century the colonial legislatures had developed a pattern of occasionaly defying the orders of the Crown for the raising of funds or local troops.

The United States was fortunate that the tyranny we were rebelling against was distant England which through benivolent neglect had allowed a remarkable degree of local self government to develop.

Posted by: Earl Sutherland at January 30, 2004 10:12 AM

It was not just benevolent neglect - the early settlers of Virginia and Puritan Massachusetts were English "commonwealthmen" - rebels in spirit - who wanted to create citizen-governed states with no significant kingly authority. By and large, they succeeded.

Posted by: pj at January 30, 2004 10:33 AM

Not only that, Earl, but before drafting the Constitution of 1789, the Americans had written and tried to work with a large number of constitutions (37, I believe) in the previous 25 years.

They made it up as they went along, so to speak, but they had started generations earlier.

This accounts for the view that the American Revolution was conservative. It was radical compared to what went on in the rest of the world, but by 1775 the 13 Colonies were already the most advanced self-governers in the world, and the Patriots fought not to overthrow the status quo but to preserve it.

However, you sidetracked me. I was going to say, Hoorah for the Monitor. This is exactly the kind of reporting I have been waiting for in Iraq and have seen very little of.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at January 30, 2004 1:02 PM
« NOW HE'S JUST TAUNTING THE RIGHT: | Main | TRIANGULATION IS BACK!: »