Posted on 10/15/2005 2:48:51 PM PDT by FairOpinion
No I mean exactly what I said. Show me a failed example of what we’re doing: sweeping away a tyrannical government in a nation of Muslims, rebuilding its military and civil service from scratch and leading them to develop their form of a constitutional democracy.
It has never been tried in any way similar to that so there is no “historical evidence” as you say of its failure that might support your belief that your pessimism is really realism. It’s just worthless pessimism. “Historical evidence” show that virtually all great innovative things are accomplished in an environment littered with baseless pessimism.
One would question if they wanted a form of constitutional democracy that in the last 300 years (general timeframe of democracies and constitutional republics as a form of government) they would have developed one themselves. Democracy, republic, or whatever you want to call it can not be exported by force.
For you to say that I show you that is nonsensical. Of course it hasn't been done before, much as the British form of government imported into the region hadn't been done before the British did it, the French, etc. It is still a foreign form of government to the Iraqis.
“Historical evidence” show that virtually all great innovative things are accomplished in an environment littered with baseless pessimism.
Of course this isn't baseless. Your only argument is based on the supposition that because the US Armed Forces are doing it, this form will take hold. That somehow the Iraqis will understand this form of government moreso than they didn't understand the numerous other Western forms of government they have been 'led' to institute in the past 1000 years.
As for your innovation argument, historical evidence showed in our own nation of states that 500 years of some form of republic had been brewing in the writings, the designs, etc of government. Starting with the Magna Carta until the Constitution the men that designed our form of government had been immersed in this environment. Have the Iraqis? But all of the sudden, after 1000 years of theocracies, military dictatorships, and no introduction to the ideals of a republic (rather the opposite) they're going to embrace the ideal of a republic and live happily ever after.
Of course you have forgotten the Iraqis' brief, rather brief I might add, attempt at democracy under the British. How did that one work out?
Post #41 [1] sweeping away a tyrannical government in a nation of Muslims, [2] rebuilding its military and civil service from scratch and [3] leading them to develop their form of a constitutional democracyThat’s never been done. , The British and the French didn’t do that. They didn’t “import their form of government into the region” like that.Post #39 [1] sweeping away tyrannical governments from Islamic nations, [2] rebuilding their military and civil service from zero and [3] leading them to develop their own constitutional democracy
We’ve successful set up governments in nations with little democratic history, but they were non-Muslim nations like Japan, the Republic of Korea. This is new.
In other defeated nations, we left strong men over intact armies, police and civil services, like in Cuba, Guatemala, Vietnam, El Salvador, Nicaragua. British and French did the same in Iraq, Iran, Turkey an much of the Arab world, without the emphasis on democratic reforms. The government institutions remained in place as barriers to democratization and facilitated tyranny under new leadership. That’s what separates or Iraqi efforts from French and British attempts, not because “we’re doing it”.
Second, Iraq is one of the most secular and educated Middle Eastern nations, with millions traveling, working and studying abroad. Even under Saddam it was exposed to Western culture. Yes, Iraq doesn’t have the advantage of the US that formed in near tabula rasa during the Renaissance while in geographic isolation, but they have other advantages. Iraq has a greater breath of exposure to successful democracies and unsuccessful alternatives than most Arab nations. They have a Western educated elite, they have some democratic experience, they have the US support of this more full reform approach and they have a mature oil industry. That of course doesn’t sweep their disadvantages away, it just ameliorates them some.
Third, if Democracy isn’t wanted in Iraq because they didn’t get it after 300 years, and won’t survive, then it shouldn’t survive in the former Soviet states didn’t want it for 280 years. And we may have even arguably “forced” it on them through 45 years of isolation and cold war. We forced democracy on Japan, so it should fail? Same for Afghanistan? Perhaps even the Republic of Korea?
Everyone recognizes that Muslim dominated nations are more resistant than communist or feudal. That’s why we’re engaged in a more all encompassing approach than British and French attempts. Success is also dependent on suppression of Islamism, which is not as widespread in Iraq as in Arab nations. We probably couldn’t free Arab states today with the same effort as we’re doing so in Iraq. It requires more of what you think needs to be present in Iraq, more of an internal reform and desire. That idea’s expanded on in a short Capitalism Magazine article that I think you’d like, “ Allah Attacks Aristotle: The Philosophical Roots of 9-11 ”
Of course Japan had an existing democracy before WWII. The emperor had only come to power again a short 70-80 years before. Point? Japan had an existing and working democracy beforehand. Iraq didn't.
sweeping away a tyrannical government in a nation of Muslims, [2] rebuilding its military and civil service from scratch and [3] leading them to develop their form of a constitutional democracy
And all those points have been addressed. Of course you haven't looked at the British attempt but yes they had 'swept away a tyrannical government' by installation of the democracy. And yes they 'led' them to develop their own form of a constitutional democracy. Again, look at the history. In the 1950s, the parties were all rather active. Matter of fact so active that one party in particular was introduced in 1952 I believe that came to eventual totalitarian power by the early 1960s.
Second, Iraq is one of the most secular and educated Middle Eastern nations, with millions traveling, working and studying abroad. Even under Saddam it was exposed to Western culture.
What's that? A secular culture already existed? And the US Armed Forces are 'leading' the Iraqis to establish a constitutional democracy that has Islam as its base? And you don't see a future problem with this?
That’s contradicted by the link that I just passed you. You didn’t read it so I’ll post a little of the text.
"To explain the gravity of this issue properly, it is first necessary to examine the history of democracy in Japan and its relationship with the matrix of socio-cultural values. Democracy in this country, most political theorists would agree, has never taken deep root. Indeed as some Japanologists like Karel von Wolferen point out, it may have never existed in the Western sense at all, save in superficial form. Major evidence supporting this assertion is the scarcity of grass-roots political movements since before feudal Japan was ruled by the Tokugawa shogunate two centuries ago. ""Of course you haven't looked at the British attempt but yes they had 'swept away a tyrannical government' by installation of the democracy. And yes they 'led' them to develop their own form of a constitutional democracy. "
British and French attempts to build democracy in the Middle East were generally limited. And most important, you skipped the most significant difference between our efforts and those of the British and French, “#2 rebuilding its military, police and civil service from scratch”. I had to posted that statement twice so that you couldn’t miss it. I then had to re-posted them both again after you ignored them both, and now you ignore it again. I presume you do so because your pessimism has no evidence to support it when reconciled with that. That #2 property was a very significant difference that contributed to past British and French failures as I explained in my last post .
"What's that? A secular culture already existed? "
Yea, that’s the way to read. When someone says that “Iraq is the one of the most secular Middle Eastern nations,” just ignore half those words and see “Iraq is a secular nation”. Pessimism does well with that kind of information filtration. Just ignore all you don’t like in the Japanese Democracy link, pretend 3 times not to notice the second property of our unique Iraqi freedom efforts I listed, and rewrite my last sentence until it makes you feel good.
My time’s worth more than this. I’m done with this nonsense. Regards.
It is important to keep all this in mind when we begin to talk about drawing lessons from Japan that might be applicable to Iraq after any projected U.S. hostilities. The postwar occupation of Japan possessed a great intangible quality that simply will not be present in the event of a U.S. war against Iraq. It enjoyed virtually unquestioned legitimacy—moral as well as legal— in the eyes of not merely the victors but all of Japan’s Asian neighbors and most Japanese themselves. Japan had been at war for almost fifteen years. It had declared war on the Allied powers in 1941. It had accepted the somewhat vague terms of surrender “unconditionally” less than four years later. Quite the opposite can be anticipated if the United States attacks and then occupies Iraq. The United States will find the legitimacy of its actions widely challenged—within Iraq, throughout the Middle East and much of the rest of the world, and even among many of its erstwhile supporters and allies.
As for pre-war Japan, here's more than enough describing some of the history and democracy that existed prior to 1945. Although I have to admit it's not written by a free-lance writer who lost two jobs before imparting his wisdom upon us (as your article was)
Acting in the name of the emperor, a small oligarchy (group of leaders) dominated the government during the 1870s and 1880s, but not without opposition....Basing their position on the first article of the 1868 Charter Oath, opposition leaders early in 1874 demanded the creation of an elected legislature.....The men in power were not adverse to some kind of constitution as a necessary and even desirable component of modernization...[and in 1881] the government announced that the emperor would grant a constitution to take effect in 1890. [BHJC, 198-199]History of JapanIn 1889 work on the constitution was completed, and it was promulgated as a “gift” from the emperor to his people. It remained in force until 1945. The emperor, “sacred and inviolable” father of the family state, was supreme. He had the power to declare war, conclude treaties, and command the army. He also had the right to open, recess, and dissolve the legislature; the power to veto the latter’s decisions, and the right to issue his own ordinances. The ministers were responsible not to the legislature but to the emperor. The Diet, as the legislature was called, consisted of two houses, the House of Peers [composed of the old court nobility, ex-daimyo, and some members of the oligarchy] and the House of Representatives. The latter was elected by a constituency of tax-paying property owners amounting to about 450,000 men or 1.1 percent of the total population. The most consequential power of the Diet was the power of the purse, but, borrowing from the Prussian example, the constitution provided for automatic renewal of the previous year’s budget whenever the Diet failed to pass a new budget. Only the emperor could take the initiative to revise the constitution.
The emperor was the final authority but he was also above politics, and the actual exercise of imperial authority was divided between the Privy Council [the highest government advisory board], the cabinet [headed by the prime minister], the Diet, and the general staff. Since the constitution failed to provide for coordination between these bodies, this was provided by the men who had been governing in the emperor’s name all along. Gradually the practice developed of deciding on the selection of prime ministers and other major questions, by consulting the genro, elder statesmen of great influence such as Ito and Yamagata, who talked things out in private. Obviously, this could work only as long as there were genro to consult. [BHJC, 201]
During the 1920s , Japan progressed toward a democratic system of government and this movement is known as 'Taisho Democracy'. However, parliamentary government was not rooted deeply enough to withstand the economic and political pressures of the 1930s , during which military leaders became increasingly influential. These shifts in power were made possible by the ambiguity and imprecision of the Meiji constitution, particularly as regarded the position of the Emperor in relation to the constitution.
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.