I've supported Operation Iraqi Freedom since well before it was launched for a myriad of reasons, and I continue to support it. However, I've had doubts about the long-term goal of making Iraq a viable, stable democracy. This is not to say that I don't think Iraq will be able to establish a democratic constitutional order-I do. Rather, I'm concerned about what happens five or ten years down the road when some crisis erupts and the government is seen to be ineffective in dealing with it. This was a major reason the French Revolution led to the Reign of Terror and the rise of Napoleon. In a democracy, the government is expected to respond to the demands of the people, and if the government can't give the people what they want, they will turn to someone claims he can if granted the necessary powers. Napoleon, Mussolini and Hitler all exploited this to gain power and become totalitarian rulers.
The only defenses against this are a strong societal belief in limited government and a belief that, given enough time, the government will fulfill its duties. I don't know whether the first has been adequately absorbed into Iraqi society, but it seems to me that the second may well be because of a certain obstacle known as the Al Qaeda-Ba'athist insurgency. The insurgency has no tangible objective beyond killing people and causing chaos. Therefore, they offer no serious alternative to the political order being established in Baghdad. However, they are still a serious problem, and if the new Iraqi government can put it down, it may gain the legitimacy it needs to survive the crises that will inevitably arise in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment