Wednesday, May 26, 2004
Down to Earth
Today's paper reports a coming together of themes and realties that were perhaps inherent in the Iraq situation from the beginning. There is seeming lament that John Kerry and George W. seem to be coming together rather than moving apart as the campaign season heats up. Bush is becoming more internationalist, Kerry remains internationalist with a little more emphasis on sharing the burden with NATO as well as the United Nations. Both are facing limited options because of a sense of responsibility and the pressure of the electorate at home. Both have long records of adapting their views to situations as they develop in spite of superficial appearance of intransigence.
The same mood is reflected in an Op-Ed by the well-known Arab-American Professor of Middle Eastern Studies Fouad Ajami. He has very much wanted the Bush dream to succeed in Iraq in spite of the difficulties, but today he heads his remarks with "Iraq May Survive, but the Dream is Dead". Ajami is despondent that in his latest speeches and actions Bush seems to be ceding Iraq to the United Nations and, after that, to the Iraqis themselves. He ends with these words, "In its modern history, Iraq has not been kind or gentle to its people. Perhaps it was folly to think that it was under any obligation to be kinder to strangers."
Most of us might actually welcome what these two trends reflect. For both indicate that the chances of a functioning political system free of outside control emerging in the near future in Iraq seems rather better than appeared a couple of months ago. The selection of the new interim government appears to be going well, and the results should be acceptable to most of the parties involved (at least that is the American perspective). The result might not be the holding of fully free and fair elections producing a facsimile of a Western European democracy. But this was always an idealistic and over-optimistic expectation. We simply have not put enough resources into the effort nor will the Iraqis give us enough time to make such an outcome probable. Outside of the traditionally democratic areas, democracy has evolved everywhere in fits and starts, with many setbacks. It took most of Latin America well over a century to institutionalize democracy. Most of the rest of the world's democracies have developed directly out of British colonial experience, generations of training that have produced the biggest and many of the smallest of the world's democracies. We did transform the Axis powers into democracies after World War II, but they all already had more democratic tradition than Iraq, our tutelage was much more extended, our assistance more generous.
But if Iraq holds together through the elections, we may end up with a start, a platform on which the Iraqis can build. Remember that observers have long pointed to the Kurdish areas as oases of light in Iraq. These areas are spoken of as though they are democracies. yet they have never been. They are essentially fiefdoms under the control of two old line tribal chieftains. They do allow their people reasonable freedoms, as long is they do not threaten the leadership. In spite of this, their example is one other groups in Iraq might emulate. When it comes to voting, there may be few people who are actually able to vote without looking over their shoulder. One can still hope that the end result is better than it has been in Nigeria where democratic forms have come and gone, and been perverted by leaders at all levels. Yet the democratic forms have persisted in Nigeria, and it has offered its people, Africa, and the international community a level of governance and freedom far better than that offered by Saddam Hussein.
Today's paper reports a coming together of themes and realties that were perhaps inherent in the Iraq situation from the beginning. There is seeming lament that John Kerry and George W. seem to be coming together rather than moving apart as the campaign season heats up. Bush is becoming more internationalist, Kerry remains internationalist with a little more emphasis on sharing the burden with NATO as well as the United Nations. Both are facing limited options because of a sense of responsibility and the pressure of the electorate at home. Both have long records of adapting their views to situations as they develop in spite of superficial appearance of intransigence.
The same mood is reflected in an Op-Ed by the well-known Arab-American Professor of Middle Eastern Studies Fouad Ajami. He has very much wanted the Bush dream to succeed in Iraq in spite of the difficulties, but today he heads his remarks with "Iraq May Survive, but the Dream is Dead". Ajami is despondent that in his latest speeches and actions Bush seems to be ceding Iraq to the United Nations and, after that, to the Iraqis themselves. He ends with these words, "In its modern history, Iraq has not been kind or gentle to its people. Perhaps it was folly to think that it was under any obligation to be kinder to strangers."
Most of us might actually welcome what these two trends reflect. For both indicate that the chances of a functioning political system free of outside control emerging in the near future in Iraq seems rather better than appeared a couple of months ago. The selection of the new interim government appears to be going well, and the results should be acceptable to most of the parties involved (at least that is the American perspective). The result might not be the holding of fully free and fair elections producing a facsimile of a Western European democracy. But this was always an idealistic and over-optimistic expectation. We simply have not put enough resources into the effort nor will the Iraqis give us enough time to make such an outcome probable. Outside of the traditionally democratic areas, democracy has evolved everywhere in fits and starts, with many setbacks. It took most of Latin America well over a century to institutionalize democracy. Most of the rest of the world's democracies have developed directly out of British colonial experience, generations of training that have produced the biggest and many of the smallest of the world's democracies. We did transform the Axis powers into democracies after World War II, but they all already had more democratic tradition than Iraq, our tutelage was much more extended, our assistance more generous.
But if Iraq holds together through the elections, we may end up with a start, a platform on which the Iraqis can build. Remember that observers have long pointed to the Kurdish areas as oases of light in Iraq. These areas are spoken of as though they are democracies. yet they have never been. They are essentially fiefdoms under the control of two old line tribal chieftains. They do allow their people reasonable freedoms, as long is they do not threaten the leadership. In spite of this, their example is one other groups in Iraq might emulate. When it comes to voting, there may be few people who are actually able to vote without looking over their shoulder. One can still hope that the end result is better than it has been in Nigeria where democratic forms have come and gone, and been perverted by leaders at all levels. Yet the democratic forms have persisted in Nigeria, and it has offered its people, Africa, and the international community a level of governance and freedom far better than that offered by Saddam Hussein.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
