Liberty versus Democracy in Iraq
| June 17th, 2003Mark Kleiman brings up something that I’ve been thinking about lately.
There are some things even a majority shouldn’t be able to do: one such thing is to impose sharia laws on women (or men). Individual freedom is, in this case, more important in my view than democracy is.
Of course, the tension between individual liberty and democracy is nothing new. John Judas has a good essay on the subject in the current Foreign Affairs (link via the Mad Prophet Blog). Reviewing Fareed Zakaria’s The Future of Freedom, Judas writes:
Zakaria defines democracy, in contrast, as a political system based on “open, free, and fair elections.” In 1830, the United Kingdom had constitutional liberty but was not a democracy: only two percent of the population was eligible to vote. The United States became a full-fledged liberal democracy after women won the vote in 1920 and blacks were guaranteed access to the polls in 1965, and now most of Europe consists of liberal democracies also. Singapore today has liberty, but not democracy. Russia, on the other hand, has elections, but under Vladimir Putin it is tossing out some of the constitutional liberties it acquired after the fall of communism.
Zakaria argues that the best way to turn developing countries into liberal democracies is by fostering constitutional liberty rather than democracy. If electoral democracy is established in a society before it has achieved constitutional liberty, it is likely to either end up as an “illiberal democracy” (like Russia) or degenerate into fascism or populist authoritarianism (as Germany and Italy did between the world wars). He speculates that if elections were held now in many Middle Eastern or North African countries, they would be won by fundamentalist parties that would proceed to destroy whatever modicum of liberty exists and probably eliminate future elections as well.
There’s also an interesting discussion of how these two forces are at work in current US politics. For instance:
Regarding Iraq, I’m afraid I can’t even see it as a tough question. Maintaining the freedom for women - all women - to walk where they want, when they want, with whom they want, wearing what they want is what really counts. Next to that, the right to vote for a government that will most likely crush women’s rights and revoke future elections just doesn’t seem terribly essential.
I’m not saying Democracy isn’t important - it is. But there are prices too high to pay, even for Democracy. At the risk of sounding like a libertarian, fundamental liberties have to be secured first; only then is the right to vote meaningful.
June 17th, 2003 at 1:56 pm
“There are some things even a majority shouldn’t be able to do: one such thing is to impose sharia laws on women (or men). Individual freedom is, in this case, more important in my view than democracy is.”
I sort of disagree. As long as dissenters are free to leave the country whenever they wish, why shouldn’t the ’sharia’ be law if that’s how the majority wants to live?
In many cases I agree that the freedom of the individual should be paramount when it doesn’t cause harm to others, but I don’t think I agree here.
We don’t have a theocracy, nor would it work in our country, but from where do we get the right to dictate that NO country can try to combine their religion and their government? If an overwhelming majority agreed to those laws, then it would be their business, not ours.
This comment was written by Anne.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2003 at 2:30 pm
Anne, that’s not a very attractive choice, submit to theocracy or leave the country. In the case of Iraq, how are women going to leave the country? And where are they going to move to? Syria? Israel?
As for democracy vs liberty, in order for a democracy to thrive, the voting public must be well educated, so they will know to use their vote appropriately and responsibly. Ignoring racist, classist and sexist motives, there is a good reason that at ratification of the US Constitution, the only people allowed to vote were white male property owners, and that is those were the upper class of society and thus were most likely to be educated. A more enlightened goal, of course would be to educate as much of the population as possible and allow everyone to vote, but then this becomes overlap with earlier posts.
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2003 at 2:54 pm
Let’s see, if I was denied my freedoms, I woulf just leave and go to…
hmm
well, I guess no where would take me. Maybe I would just become a rebel and die rather than leave my city and the land that I love. Yeah, that’s definitely preferable
Also, just to focus on specifics, I wonder if we really think a person should be allowed to wear whatever they want. we make women wear shirts in this country on the street. Now, I don’t think that justifies the Burka, but I wonder if there is a way for Islamic states to balance women’s individual right to express themselves and society’s desire for propriety. I mean, I ‘m much more concerned about women’s right to speak, work, and live independently.
This comment was written by MDtoMN.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2003 at 4:28 pm
I don’t favor laws forbidding women from going shirtless (and not all states and cities have such laws, btw). But I agree it’s not that important an issue, in all cases; I included it because of my weakness for alliteration.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 18th, 2003 at 5:00 am
Personally I think the UN should militarily occupy all countries where the elections aren’t free and fair…
:)
When you talk about sovereignty, make sure you know what you are talking about. I would not presume to impose the abolition of the death penalty on the US, despite the fact that it is barbaric and cruel. I do not see why Americans should presume to influence elections in foreign countries in any way whatsoever.
After all, Americans don’t have to live there. If Iraqis want to live in a theocracy, let them. Or does America demand that every country be subservient to it, and to subscribe to their narrow view of “free-market” capitalism, or else?
I think we should be told.
This comment was written by Larry Lurex.Report this comment to the moderators
June 18th, 2003 at 9:10 am
The problem is that you cannot have individual liberties protected without some sort of deomcracy, I think. Imposing choices on people when they have no say is percieved as tyrrany, and the beneficiaries of such imposition are seen as the enemey. I do not think the right route is liberties imposed, then democracy. I think you need to do them at the same time, or I do not think they will last.
This comment was written by kevin.Report this comment to the moderators
June 18th, 2003 at 6:18 pm
It is possible to be democratic and still ban extremist parties. The US doesn’t do that, of course. But Germany bans the Nazi Party. Israel banned Kahane’s Kach Party. The Baath Party has been banned in Iraq.
A democratic constitution in Iraq could be drafted that was self-referencing–parties that refused to pledge to uphold the constitution would be banned from participating in elections.
This comment was written by Smart Genes.Report this comment to the moderators
June 18th, 2003 at 8:03 pm
This is a tricky question, but I feel that I have to weigh in on the ‘if they want a theocracy let them have it’ side.
Turkey has banned hijab in some cases, banned Islamic extremists, and all the time they’re on the verge of a military coup because the generals are under seige from the Islamists. Under the Shah, women were actively banned from wearing chador in public, and this created tremendous resentment in the religious population. But now that they’ve had theocracy for a couple decades, most of the people have gotten thoroughly sick of it.
It seems like that large faction of society, if they are a voting majority, needs to get it out of their systems. Just like, hopefully, Americans will get voting for ideologically radical theocrats out of their systems.
But aiding, though not controlling, the creation of a constitution whose executive was secularly chosen would be a big plus. Even if the judicial system was set up around sharia law, it would give people an in to change it if they summon the political will.
This comment was written by natasha.Report this comment to the moderators
June 18th, 2003 at 8:55 pm
As far as I can see, nothing prevents a devout person from living under whatever religious laws he or she wishes to keep. The wicket gets sticky when such laws are imposed upon others without their consent.
A citizen living under secular law who disagrees with a given provision, may challenge it in court or in parliament. Religious law makes no such provision for disagreement; dissenters are labelled “heretics” and punished accordingly.
So I will oppose theocracies at all times, and in all places, as tyranny. Let the believers worship as they please, and order their lives in as close accordance with their beliefs as they may wish. But do not ever let them set up their diety as the source of law for all.
This comment was written by pericat.Report this comment to the moderators
June 19th, 2003 at 2:00 pm
Why not have elections segregated by gender? If it’s good enough for the schools…
I would be interested to see what leader Iraqi women would pick.
I thought I could distinguish between laws that say women cannot bare sexualized parts of their bodies, and laws that require women to cover everything except their eyes, and then I thought maybe theocracies just sexualize everything.
But that must make life pretty exciting for guys who live in those countries. American boys have to live in hope of someone’s bikini top falling off in the pool. Iranian boys are watching to see a bit of hair or a wrist.
Seriously, there’s a big difference between how women in America who go around topless are treated, and how women in theocratic countries who refuse to wear burqa are treated. For one thing, we don’t have corporal punishment anymore.
This comment was written by PG.Report this comment to the moderators
June 19th, 2003 at 2:26 pm
Regarding Iraq, I’m afraid I can’t even see it as a tough question. Maintaining the freedom for women - all women - to walk where they want, when they want, with whom they want, wearing what they want is what really counts. Next to that, the right to vote for a government that will most likely crush women’s rights and revoke future elections just doesn’t seem terribly essential.
By whose standards, Amp? Western?
I’ve heard some Muslim women claim that they LIKE the veil, saying it protects them from the kind of exploitation in the Amerikkkan porn industry…..not to mention whay your average woman in the USA gets from hormally-challenged creeps on the street. By their lights, Western women should envy THEM…..
I’m sorry, but I must continue to view this from a multicultural perspective. Germane Greer says that Western feminism is tainted in much of the 3rd world by seeming to be promoting white Western cultural imperialism—and I have to say that there’s a significant kernel of truth in Greer’s allegation.
This comment was written by pdm.Report this comment to the moderators
June 19th, 2003 at 2:54 pm
I honestly don’t see where you and Amp disagree, pdm. Not at all:
Maintaining the freedom for women - all women - to walk where they want, when they want, with whom they want, wearing what they want is what really counts.
Unless you mean that, because a majority of women within a culture like wearing (say) a chador, that all women may then be mandated by law to wear a chador. Whether individually they want to or not.
Cultures are free to use mechanisms of shame and peer pressure to attempt to impose those clothing and dietary strictures, those restrictions on the freedom of association, of sexuality, of speech–any restriction, say, to basic human rights. They must not use the rule of law. The one can be rebelled against, fought and flaunted, if the individual so chooses. The other is much more easily abused.
This comment was written by --k..Report this comment to the moderators
June 19th, 2003 at 2:57 pm
I hate forgetting to edit. Should have been, “any restriction, say, to basic human rights, that for whatever reason they feel is necessary to the survival of their culture.”
Also, Amp’s quote “Maintaining the freedom for women…” should have been italicized. I think the tags got eaten.
(Of course, I could just hack into Amp’s MT and fix the comment myself, but that would be cheating.)
This comment was written by --k..Report this comment to the moderators
June 18th, 2004 at 2:32 am
Should American democracy assume the “right” to liberate others in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan where women (and minorities, ect) are suppressed? Is it the destiny of democracy to spread by the will of the people both from within and outside of that individual country?
For me, I feel this falls into the theories of “Guerrilla Foco” by Che Guevara; paraphrased into a “when the people of a country are suppressed and feel that they cannot resist, you can bring a group from outside the country and show (inspire) the people to revolt by attacking the seemingly impervious government. Sort of a terror/inspirational government toppling movement.
America is the most powerful country in the world nearly any way you measure it. That said- it is still a democracy, and if the people do not want the government in Iraq, votes will eventually make that decision occur. But- when those who vote (most Americans live very comfortably compared to most others- women enjoy great freedoms in the US) do not experience a loss of rights, do they lose the ability to understand or mourn the co-existance of others around the world suffering right now under a suppressive government?
Women in Iran right now are suppressed.
A woman raped in Turkey right now needs 3 male eye-witnesses (men defined as “of good reputation”) to prove in court that she was raped. Coby Bryant certainally would have fared better on legal bills if he was a Turkish citizen…
Is it becoming America’s job to invest lives, resources, and time into assisting (setting free??) others around the world, offering them to replace their governments with a democratic one? If so- where will it end? At what point will we start toppeling monarchies, communist governments, any government not directly controlled by the will of the people?
-Doppelganger
This comment was written by Doppelganger.Report this comment to the moderators
June 18th, 2004 at 9:40 am
Whenever I consider this question, I am invariably confronted with the apparent hypocrisy of any attempt by the United States to determine what type of government another state should have. The United States? “Directly controlled by the will of the people?” I think not. And that’s not even a bad thing. Those fellows we call Founding Fathers set up the Constitution in such a way as to — at least try — to avoid “the tyranny of the majority.” It’s a republic, isn’t it, rather than a democracy?
This comment was written by newswriter.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2006 at 4:02 am
s not the only element, and maybe not even the most essential element. The conflict between democracy and women’s fundamental human rights is a topic I’ve blogged on several times already, generally in the context of Iraq (1 2 3 4 5 ). Women’s liberty in Iraq, already in decline under Hussain, have sharply plummeted since the U.S. invasion. The ability to vote for religious fanatics who are determined to end women’s freedoms is not freedom in any meaningful sense, and
This comment was written by Creative Destruction.Report this comment to the moderators