Today's news concerning the vote in Iraq has exceeded my expectations. Even if the turnout was only 60%, versus the 72% reported earlier, it is still more than most had predicted. CNN, Reuters, and Agence France Presse all had similar, upbeat stories to tell. Aljazeera had a pessimistic view, but they seemed to be highlighting some peripheral issues to find things to be down about.
Personally, I find the news not just good, but moving. In many of my classes on development, there is question about the "appropriateness", or even compatibility, of democracy with development. Many people believe - and maybe the prevailing wisdom is - that security and stability must come first; political liberalization can and will follow once the country is prosperous enough. Certainly that's the history from South Korea, Taiwan, and Chile in the latter 20th century. Even more than just a model of how development "ought" to go, some suggest that people are perfectly willing to make that trade of political liberty for stability and prosperity. That's part of many descriptions of China, 15 years after Tiananmen Square. But events today in Iraq showed, in dramatic terms, the appeal of liberty and a voice in one's own government. In spite of the thousands of deaths before the poll, the threat of further killings today - sadly realized for at least 35 people - and widespread resentment of being under occupation for almost two years, millions of Iraqis did turn out to vote. Only time will tell what their decisions portend for their country, but today I hope they are proud.
Sunday, January 30, 2005
Good news from Iraq
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Certainly the founding father's didn't buy the whole "once everything is really secure, maybe we can have a little freedom" business. You may recall that the British had something called the "Quartering Act" which in essence said that if you had fancy digs, you might get stuck having to play B&B host to a British soilder. The ostensible purpose was to keep the colonist safe from "terrorist heathen Indians." The Bostonians thought the idea of "dangerous Indians" to be so funny, that they dressed up like Indians and hijacked a huge freighter full of commerical goods, dumping all that cargo into the drink. I might have some of these events in reverse order but the point is: It's baloney. The rule of law simultaneously creates both freedom and security. This is because the rule of law requires struggle, participation, involvement - it is inherently democratic because everyone has to play. I had some more to say, but I have to study.
1. Maybe, but the Founding Fathers weren't exactly fomenting revolution for development. They thought they weren't getting a fair shake in the existing political system, evidenced by civil and economic oppression.
2. Let's not forget who "they" were that weren't getting a fair shake: it was the elites. The FF were content to keep the masses out of politics (eg, the Electoral College). Certainly they didn't try to expand participation to the common man, never mind women or slaves.
3. The rule of law is not synonymous with freedom, struggle, participation, or involvement, nor is it inherently democratic. Singapore and the US military are two institutions strong in the rule of law that I would be hesitant to hold up as models of liberal democracy.
Oh, and I forgot:
2a. Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798
I love the Sedition Act because it exposes the bare lie that is the legacy of John Adams. He is often called the "Father of the Bill of Rights" or something stupid like that.
I would argue that Singapore doesn't really have a rule of law but a rule of regulation, which is different.
People beat up on the electoral college but I actually think that it is a fairly ingenous and effective system that has withstood the test of time.
I believe that you may be overestimating just how developed the thirteen colonies actually were. Or maybe you are underestimating how developed Iraq actually is. At some level this whole "historical comparision" exercise is fruitless to believe that the past really is analagous to the present means that we are biases about how the present it and we force past events to fit into that context. I brought it up the comparision so I guess I am fruitless.
William, you may be bananas, but never fruitless.
I don't want to prolong this beyond the point of being interesting; I just want to clarify that I am not an Electoral College basher. I, too, think it is a clever and good thing.
I love bananas! I only wish there were more "n"s. If it were my way, we would have bannannans. The pronunciation, however, would not change. Oh... and all of the "n"s would actually be optional to the individual speller so that I might construct a sentence like "I am just baaas about bannanas of the bannanna republic's baannans."
Once again, it's late and I've been briefing cases... G'night
Post a Comment