Democracy 101: What Lessons will America Teach Iraq? David D. Peck, Ph.D. As a long-term military occupation and guerilla war take shape in Iraq, Americans are increasingly asking what should we do next? The answer lies in reconsidering the reasons why we are there, and in devising some means to exit, while leaving a stable government behind. To do this, the United States must teach respect for the rule of law, and must give Iraq the bureaucratic means needed to create self-government. Why did America invade Iraq? The original reasons for occupying Iraq evaporated in the early days of the war. There is little rational hope of discovering weapons of mass destruction. There is no credible or substantial link between Saddam Hussein and al-qaeda s attack on America. Saddam was a paper tiger at the international level before the first shots were even fired, and America knew it. Domestically, he practiced mayhem and murder, but that was not among the reasons originally given for going to war. Instead, other justifications later emerged, intended to repair the damage to national credibility resulting from a growing perception that this was an occupation without a cause. The Bush administration now suggests that the occupation is justified if, first, America can capture Saddam Hussein (mission accomplished) and, second, establish democratic government. Teaching democracy by example Every citizen should be able to identify key factors favoring the emergence of democratic and republican government in the American colonies, including: The existence of a growing, politically-active middle class. Respect for the rule of law, and the necessary institutions to enforce it. Popular interest in political debate. An independent, well-trained and honest bureaucracy to collect taxes, mint coins, raise and lead armies, etc. By now, most Americans should realize that many of the factors favoring the establishment of democratic government in Iraq are either missing entirely in Iraq or are in an embryonic state of development. a longer occupation appears necessary, if democratic government is to be firmly established. But the military occupation must be underscored by constant practical instruction on how to develop and maintain the infrastructure of democracy. America is currently teaching Iraq two important lessons in democracy, for better or for worse. The first lesson involves respect for the rule of law. The second lesson involves setting the stage for fair elections by taking a reliable national census for the first time in decades. Too many Americans are unaware of this. The rule of law, democratic-style
The capture of Saddam Hussein presents an opportunity to teach Iraqis about the rule of law. Respect for the rule of law exists when all individuals within a democratic society are governed by the same set of basic rules, regardless of race, religion, economic condition, social class or office. The decision to allow Iraq to try Hussein in a transparent, public forum is a powerful lesson in respect for the rule of law. Saddam Hussein s cruelty fell hardest upon his own people. They bore the deadly consequences of his oppression for decades: he used chemical weapons and torture methods to reinforce his personal power. A public trial by his own people, employing Iraqi law is appealing to our sense of justice, whereas a U.S.-controlled trial might be viewed as mere revenge. Although the public trial of Saddam Hussein by Iraq is appealing to our sense of justice, the United States may be simultaneously teaching disrespect for the rule of law. There are over six hundred Muslims detained in outdoor chain link cells at the Guantanamo Bay naval base. They have not been formally charged with crimes even though some were arrested over a year ago. They were arrested overseas and later relocated to Cuba. They have no access to family members. They don t receive legal counsel. The scenario evokes images of concentration camps for Japanese Americans during World War Two (one of America s lamentable civil and human rights mistakes). Is fear of terrorism driving Americans to repeat the same mistake, teaching disrespect for the rule of law? The United States should uphold the rule of law as defined in the constitution. The detainees should be given legal protections of due process, presumption of innocence, and the assistance of legal counsel. The extension of constitutional protection to the detainees would teach Iraq and the world that America takes the rule of law seriously, a lesson which post-saddam Iraq desperately needs to learn through the power of good example. The importance of a census The New York Times (12/04/2003) reported that prominent Iraqi political figures, including the popular Shi ite cleric Ali al-sistani, formally asked the United States to conduct a national census and prepare voter registries leading to a nationwide election as early as September, 2004. The administration rejected the plan in less than twenty-four hours, without consulting the U.S.-created Iraqi Governing Council. Instead, America proposed that elections proceed in a caucus fashion where a select few participate in the actual election. The problem is, of course, where to begin the caucus appointment process: at the village level, or higher? Without a national census it is impossible to proceed rationally. Several Iraqi notables viewed the refusal to conduct the census as an effort to rig the election, and produce a leader that represented America s interests, but not the interests of Iraq. There are two important reasons why the United States should reconsider its refusal. First, the census would help define just who the people of Iraq are and classify them in ways that give government a handle on tax collection and how best to provide basic services to the population. Second, the census allows for the type of administrative planning necessary to properly conduct elections and other modes of democratic expression. Congressional redistricting battles follow every national census in the United States. In a very real sense the political status of a party on the national level is
strengthened or jeopardized every ten years simply by counting the U.S. population. the census was considered so vital to democracy that it was made a constitutional mandate instead of a political convenience (or inconvenience). Bureaucrats have counted people from very ancient times. Empires in Persia, Babylonia and China each held a periodic census. The Christmas story illustrates how ancient Rome used the census to more effectively collect taxes: AND it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city (Luke 2:1,3). Although the practice of census-taking is ancient, its purposes changed at about the same time as modern democratic governments emerged. Ancient census methods were aimed primarily at tax collection or toward military conscription. The modern census is a tool of state planning necessary to successfully operate the large-scale bureaucracies associated with a democratic state. A modern census quantifies the socioeconomic structure of a society and outlines important demographic trends, all of which are necessary to the implementation of stable democracy. Oxford University scholar Niall Ferguson suggests that the quality of a nation s tax bureaucracy is linked to long-term stability in democratic governments: overtax and breed unrest, undertax and fail to compete in a global economic environment, or worse yet, fail to provide for internal security. Revenue collection methods are haphazard at best without a census to define appropriate levels of taxation, or to identify which sectors of society can best bear the weight of taxation. It appears that the administration should welcome a census, not oppose it. The example of Lebanon There is even more reason to take a census in Iraq. Continuing sectarian and ethnic division threatens the stability of any Iraqi government. Lebanese history illustrates the destructive consequences of failing to take a census in a divided nation. In 1916 the British and French decided to divvy-up the Arab Middle East following World War One. According to the plan, called the Sykes-Picot Agreement, Britain would control the region then known as Mesopotamia, while France would colonize the region of Syria. France occupied Syria after the war, and then sliced off the country now known as Lebanon. Lebanon was created by France, for France, so that France could exercise colonial control. France had long-standing trade and cultural ties with a particular Christian-Arab minority in Lebanon, called Maronites. The French hoped to control Lebanon s Muslim- Arab population through these Christians. In order to do this, France imposed a Lebanese constitution in 1926. The Lebanese constitution called for representative government organized along confessional lines: so many seats of Parliament would go to Maronite Christians, so many seats to Sunni Muslims, so many to the Druze, etc. Additionally, offices such as President and Prime Minister were distributed according to each faith s share of the national population. Lebanon conducted a census in 1932, and accordingly the presidency was held by a Maronite and the Prime Ministry by a Sunni Muslim. The system functioned -- so long as the sectarian composition of the population didn t change. The population, however, changed dramatically. In 1948 about 150,000 Palestinian refugees relocated in Lebanon to escape the violence involved in the war to
establish the State of Israel. In 1970, over three hundred thousand more Palestinian refugees relocated to southern Lebanon after they were dislodged from Jordan. Muslims Arabs had more children than Christian-Arabs, decreasing the Maronite population share. The Lebanese census of 1932, however, was the only one taken until the later 1980s. Maronites used the political power gained as a result of the 1932 census to make certain that no other census was taken until the late 1980s. This defeated confessional representation, the bedrock of democratic political agreement among the sects of Lebanon. Ethnic tensions thereafter increased, erupting in the civil war of 1975-1990, causing over one hundred thousand deaths. Although all of Lebanon s political problems cannot be blamed on the mere failure to take a census, that failure promoted steadily increasing levels of cynicism and distrust, undermining democracy. Ethnic and sectarian tension in Iraq In Iraq, as in Lebanon, democracy is challenged by significant ethnic and sectarian tension. The country is divided between Muslim Kurds who predominate in the north, Sunnite Muslims in the central region and Shi ite Muslims in the south. Like Lebanon, Iraq s borders were created by a European power (in this case, Britain) in order to facilitate colonial control. Britain controlled Iraq from 1920 to 1932, under another League of nations mandate. Britain gave no thought to how well Iraq s peoples would (or would not) get along, nor did Britain design the country to eventually become democratic. Britain taught political cynicism and disregard fro democratic principles during the mandate. It may appear to Iraqis that current U.S. actions are similarly intended to facilitate American colonial control, while claiming to promote Iraqi democracy. The democratic future of Iraq remains undecided in several crucial aspects: o Should Iraq retain its current borders? o If so, should Iraq s population have ethnic political autonomy, dividing the country into at least three political zones? o Should Iraq s future government provide for religious representation as well as political representation? o How will a new government in Iraq secure the steady flow of revenue necessary to rebuild and maintain its economy? The good way to tackle these issues is by taking a census at an early stage of the American occupation. This would help to define the Iraqi People intelligently. Then the Iraqi people could vote for the kind of state they prefer. School is in session America teaches Iraq practical lessons about democracy every day. Allowing Iraq to try Saddam Hussein teaches respect for the rule of law, a basic tenet of democratic government. In contrast, the secretive, and perhaps illegal, detentions at Guantanamo Bay teach disrespect for the rule of law and undermine principles of freedom embodied in the constitution. America can empower democracy in Iraq directly through a census followed by fair elections. As the history of Lebanon illustrates, the failure to take the task of democratic instruction seriously may prove disastrous. Will America teach the right lessons?