Once again, a nation walks through fire to give the West its 'democracy'

[marmar]

from the Independent UK:



Robert Fisk: Once again, a nation walks through fire to give the West its 'democracy'
Democracy doesn't seem to work when countries are occupied by Western troops

Monday, 8 March 2010


In 2005 the Iraqis walked in their tens of thousands through the thunder of suicide bombers, and voted – the Shias on the instructions of their clerics, the Sunnis sulking in a boycott – to prove Iraq was a "democracy". There followed the most blood-boltered period in Iraq's modern history. Yesterday, the Iraqis walked in their tens of thousands through the thunder of mortar fire – at least 24 dead before voting stations closed – to prove that Iraq was a "democracy".

This time, the Sunnis did vote. And we Westerners tried to forget the past, even the recent past. Few news reports recalled that only weeks ago hundreds of candidates, most of them Sunnis, were banned from standing on the grounds that they had once had links with the Baath Party. It was a clear return to sectarian politics. Shias who were close to Saddam still hold their jobs in the "democratic" Iraq for which the Iraqis supposedly went to vote yesterday.

Under Iraq's new laws, the electoral system has been jiggled to ensure that no single party can win power. There has got to be a coalition, an alliance – or a "broad alliance" as the television analysts were telling us – among whomever of the 6,000 candidates from 86 parties gain seats in parliament. But all this means is that the next sectarian government will hold power according to the percentage of Shia, Sunni and Kurdish communities in Iraq.

The West has always preferred this system in the Middle East, knowing that such "democracy" will produce governments according to the confessional power of each community. We've done this in Northern Ireland. We did it in Cyprus. The French created a Lebanon whose very identity is confessional, each community living in suspicious love of each other lest they be destroyed. Even in Afghanistan, we prefer to deal with the corrupt Hamid Karzai – held in disdain by most of his fellow Pushtuns – and allow him to rule on our behalf with an army largely made up of paid tribal supporters. This may not be – in the State Department's laughable excuse – "Jeffersonian democracy", but it's the best we are going to get. ...........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-once-again-a-nation-walks-through-fire-to-give-the-west-its-democracy-1917802.html

[madrchsod]

1. one of the few western journalists that understand the middle east

[Igel]

2. Not if this article is any indication.

The Ottomans made it a practice of merging confession with ethnicity. If you were a Xian, your priest answered for the community; if you were a Muslim, the mosque was part of your government. I suspect they inherited it, since it's fairly widespread in Muslim lands for your confession to be your ethnicity. Until recently in Pakistan your passports would say if you were Xian or Muslim (and Ahmedis weren't Muslim).

In case of collective punishment, the religious hierarchy above you often decided who would pay or be punished. It made since, since the state was religious in nature. This kind of system made the church in Russia, a fairly trivial, subordinate thing, much more important. You were viewed not by ethnicity, not by clan or tribe, but by confession.

So when there's a democracy, the way that your allegiance was decided for the previous 1000 years continued. You're expected to represent your confession and vote in line with your confession.

We're much more enlightened in the West. Instead of confession, we use ethnicity and decide that instead of voting counter to your confession (which could get you killed) you'd be better described as voting against your race (which simply carries with it calumny). Same silly communalist views, which lead to communalist spoils and communalist punishment if carried to its logical conclusion.