In Iraq, religion has a key role for democracy

WASHINGTON America has encountered many surprises since it invaded Iraq, but now that the political process is under way the biggest surprise may be just around the corner, and it's this: The first post-Saddam Hussein democratic government that the United States gives birth to in Iraq may be called "The Islamic Republic of Iraq" - and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

The challenge of reforming any of the 22 nondemocratic Arab states comes down to a very simple question: How do you get from here to there - how do you go from an authoritarian monarchy or a military regime to a more representative government - without ending up with a Khomeini-like theocracy à la Iran or a civil war à la Algeria.

Virtually all of these Arab states suffer from the same problem: Because of decades of political repression, one-man rule and economic stagnation, there is no viable middle class and no legitimate, independent political parties and institutions to fill the void once the authoritarian leadership is removed. Iraq exhibits this problem in spades.

As a result, in the Sunni and Shiite areas of Iraq, the primary sources of legitimacy, and political expression, are tribal and religious. This dependence upon, and respect for, religious authority will be reflected in the first post-Saddam government - whether it comes about by indirect or direct elections. Because Shiites make up 60 percent of Iraq, and because the only current legitimate Shiite leaders are religious figures, their views and aspirations will have to be taken into account.

There is, however, good reason to believe that Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most revered Shiite cleric in Iraq and the only one who can claim to speak for Iraqi Shiites as a whole, does not aspire to be a Khomeini. Many Iraqi Shiite clerics have lived in Iran and avowedly do not want to follow its authoritarian path. Moreover, because Shiites are a majority in Iraq, they are the ones with the greatest stake in keeping Iraq a unified state. Given their numbers, any democratic Iraq is one where Shiites, be they liberals or conservatives, will have great influence. But to keep Iraq unified the Shiites will have to respect the rights and aspirations of Iraq's Kurds and Sunnis, as well as other minorities.

What is unfolding in Iraq today - a tug of war between Ayatollah Sistani and the Governing Council over how an interim government should be elected - is something inevitable, essential and inescapably messy.

"What we are witnessing," explains Yitzhak Nakash, the Brandeis University professor who is the author of "The Shi'is of Iraq," "is a very healthy bargaining session over what will be the relationship between religion and politics in Iraq and over the process of choosing legitimate national and communal leaders. It is very important that the Americans show respect for the views of Sistani - whose tacit support for the U.S. presence in Iraq has been enormously important - and let Sistani and the other Iraqi political forces thrash this out on their own."

Ayatollah Sistani is "not a Khomeini," Nakash adds, and he does not envisage an Iraq ruled directly by clerics. The ayatollah comes from the quietist school of Shiite clerics, who have traditionally attempted to shield themselves from politics. In demanding elections, he's obviously looking out for Shiite interests, but he's also insisting that the new Iraqi government be as legitimate and stable as possible.

"If there is going to be a stable government in Iraq, it has to come about after some genuine public debate and after some consensus is reached regarding the relationship between religion and state and between the clerics and the politicians," Nakash said. "Otherwise, no Iraqi government will last once the Americans leave. It will not have a legitimate base."

If things go reasonably well, the result will be an initial Iraqi government that is more religious than Turkey but more democratic than Iran. Not bad.

The United States must not try to abort this unfolding discussion among Iraqis. In fact, we Americans should be proud of it. We are fostering a much-needed free political dialogue in the heart of the Arab world. Our job is to make sure there is enough security for this critical discussion, so I would bring every U.S. soldier from Europe and Japan to Iraq to make this work.

There is no more important political project for the United States in the world today than seeing if Iraq can get from Saddam to Jefferson without going through Khomeini.

Ths BS reminds me of Friedman's Fulminations circe 1990 when he posited that if only Israel would give up land for peace, everything will be OK. Then came Oslo and we know the rest of that story.

The fact of the matter is that the Kurds have been experiencing a secular self-government for the last 12-13 years, when it was protected by the no-fly zone.

Religion & government don't mix.

How many times does that have to be proven to Mr. Friedman, the NYT "expert" on things Middle East.

Tell the founders of Massachusetts that "religion and government don't mix". When the overwhelming majority are religious, democracy will always lead to respect for religion from the government. Are moderation and compromise the greatest practical virtues in politics? Sure. But there is no reason to discount Sistani being an honorable man. "Ack, but he believes in God!" Ack, so did William Penn, who founded the first state on earth to respect freedom of conscience as a matter of law. We survived.

There is no more important political project for the United States in the world today than seeing if Iraq can get from Saddam to Jefferson without going through Khomeini. -Thomas L. Friedman

Freedom is not the same thing as elections. You don't take a vote on whether to establish Sharia. The US, as the victor, calls the shots and guides Iraq to write the Constitution of a federated republic. Erecting a theocracy is out of scope. But so is Western-style separation of church and state, something stupid here, utterly nonsensical there.

Thank goodness the likes of Tom Friedman aren't in charge.

Freidman doesn't know what he's talking about. The diversity of opinions in Iraq are as varied and healthy as they are here. While I agree that we should listen to Al Sistani's council (as he is a very wise man) neither we nor the Iraqi people will just follow blindly. Problems should be discussed with him because he can offer perspectives we don't see, and, since the man is a scholar, he will be willing to listen to any objections to his suggestions.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.