Replies

At present, only Turkey, Lebanon and some of the ex-Soviet republics have been able to form secular governments in the midst of Muslim populations. All the rest that have constitutional governments have recognized Islam as the official religion.

The administration’s belief that a representative democracy as we know it can flourish in an Islamic society seems to fly in the face of lessons learned from a history of more than 14 centuries. Removing religion as the organizing principle of society, replacing it with a non-religious substitute, is totally foreign to Islam.

The second paragraph is contradicted by the first. And there is a hole-card in Iraq known as "$20 billion per year of oil revenue." Once establish a secular government which dispenses that $$$ to the people individually in an Iraqi Social Security System, and the people will never vote in a secret ballot to undermine that government. That may average out to poverty in America, but in the third world we're talking wealth.
Shi'ite or no, at that price I think the people will be bought and stay bought.

Your suggestion is, IMHO, one of the dangers they face. It matters not how a central government subdues its people - through terror, religion (or both in some cases), or with largesse from the public trough - the fact remains that an omnipotent central government results. That is not so bad as long as the government truly has the welfare of the people in mind but it doesn't take long nor much of a slip for ambitious and ruthless people to take charge. After all, Communism is designed, though fatally flawed, to be an avenue to heaven on earth. So what if several millions have to be killed and other millions re-educated through torture and prison, heaven is worth the price, especially if you are the stand-in for Saint Peter.

The most workable solution, given the history of tribal leaders, etc., is a version of democracy featuring ward politics with strong "precinct" leaders. I know that usually leads to corruption but it is a start. The corruption can be dealt with once the concept and system are in place.

Exactly what to do with the oil wealth is a key problem. State ownership mitigates against democracy and free enterprise. Perhaps a large private corporation with all citizens being stock holders would be a way.

What is really at stake here is the concept, oft repeated by Bush, that freedom is an innate and God-given right, yearned for by all. Is that true? I think it is and if it is then this plan for that region may work. If it is not true the destination is not worth the trip.

Although seemingly so, there is no contradiction, historically speaking, between these statements. Turkey was secularized through the strongarm efforts of Kemal Ataturk, who was reviled by the Muslim community, as were reformers like Nasser, King Farouk, Sadat, Hafes-al-Asad, and the Shah in Iran. Lebanon had a written constitution, but no central religion; and it had a large Christian population. The former Soviet Republics have an uncertain future and still struggle with these problems.

With these the only exceptions, the rest of the Islamic world has never maintained a democracy, only family dynasties, monarchies, or in the case of Saddam, Baath socialist party hegemony.