June 15, 2004
KNOWING YOUR ALLIES:
Democratic Revolution?: A majority of Iraqis now want representative government. (REUEL MARC GERECHT, June 15, 2004, Wall Street Journal)
The Shiite clergy led by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani has been consistently ecumenical toward the Sunnis and their clerics. With rare exceptions, the ayatollah has fought the repatriation of Shiite mosques that Saddam gave to Sunnis after the Shiite-led rebellion of 1991. Sistani's commentary about governance and democracy has been free (in Sunni eyes) of insulting Shiite historical allusions. So, too, has been Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Sayyid al-Hakim, the No. 2 Shiite cleric who is the only "pure" Iraqi Arab (Sistani is of Iranian birth) among Najaf's four grand ayatollahs. Contrary to much "accepted wisdom," the increasing religious identity on both the Sunni and Shiite sides is likely to fortify, not weaken, the fraternal and nationalist bonds between the two Arab communities.Though vastly more tolerant and appreciative of American actions, the Arab Shiites, too, have diminishing patience and curiosity about Americans and the Iraqi authorities whom Washington has placed over them. The desire for elections among the Shiites is enormously powerful--Sistani's pro-democracy broadsides, which knocked America's MacArthur-like proconsul, L. Paul Bremer, to his knees and sent the Bush administration reeling toward the U.N., have had such force precisely because his statements reflect widespread sentiment throughout the Shiite community. It is by no means clear whether the Shiites view this new interim government as a step closer to democracy, which will finally give the Shiites the social prominence and political power equal to their numbers (they are at least 60% of the population).
Ayatollah Sistani has given the new government a tepid blessing, while emphasizing that real legitimacy can only come from the ballot box. The Shiites have already noted--particularly those who are more religious and politically define themselves in terms of their faith--that this new interim government actually gives less to them than did the Iraqi Governing Council. The Shiite Prime Minister Iyad Allawi is a thoroughly secularized fellow who appears to be more comfortable with Sunnis than with Shiites. His former organization, the Iraqi National Accord, was a well-known repository for fallen though not necessarily democratically inclined Sunni Baathists. Sistani didn't veto his selection, and the Grand Ayatollah certainly could have. The cleric surely realizes that Mr. Allawi has no political base in Iraq--if Mr. Allawi has a political future he must build it among the Shiites, which means he must be sensitive to the preferences and concerns of the clergy. If he tries to use his office except as an instrument to prepare for national elections, then he runs the serious risk of making himself politically irrelevant very quickly. The Central Intelligence Agency, which has backed Mr. Allawi for years, and the White House would be well advised not to believe they've gotten the better of Ayatollah Sistani with the selection of Mr. Allawi, who was not the cleric's first choice. The ayatollah continues to control the destiny of a democratic Iraq.
It is certain that the ayatollah and the Shiite community as a whole will view the new interim government with profound suspicion until it proves that elections are its first and overwhelming priority. If it doesn't do this, if it even intimates that the January 2005 date for constituent elections may be too soon (and there is much "expert" advice in the U.S. and the U.N. which believes this), then it's conceivable that Sistani will view the American presence in Iraq as harmful to the advance of democracy. This would be a terrible conclusion.
But it would be accurate. Posted by Orrin Judd at June 15, 2004 6:35 PM
It's very clear now that when Iraqis use the word 'democracy' they mean something unlike, and mostly antithetical, to what we mean when we use the word.
This was apparent almost from the first day, although even such savvy thinkers as Lileks missed the point, when the guy painted the 'Democracy, whisky, sexy' graffito.
For the most part, 'democracy' to an Iraqi means 'my group gets to ride roughshod over all the other groups.'
Posted by: Harry Eagar at June 15, 2004 7:32 PMHow's that differ from the way we use the word?
Posted by: joe shropshire at June 15, 2004 7:59 PMBy democracy, Americans will mention one of the below, but almost always assume all of them in its definition:
Regular elections
Majority rule
Minority rights
Limitations on government power
Rule of law
Popular sovereignty
Unfortunately, tha translation is often only one of them and not the whole package.
All of them are necessary for an effective democracy.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at June 15, 2004 8:19 PMIt doesn't mean what we mean when we use it. After all, it covers everything from 1789 to 2004
Posted by: oj at June 15, 2004 9:07 PMAll that stuff is well and good, Chris, so long as my group gets to ride roughshod over all the other groups when the dust settles.
Posted by: jefferson park at June 15, 2004 10:28 PMDemocracy = mob rule.
Posted by: Sandy P at June 16, 2004 3:00 AMSandy P:
Exactly, which is the reason our founding fathers choose a Republic instead of a Demos-ocracy.
What Chris said along with some others like "a man's home is his castle."
Posted by: Harry Eagar at June 16, 2004 8:09 PM