Nor does there appear to be much chance of actual democracy breaking out. I thought we would have people in Iraq pushing democracy, not hiding in Saddam's old palaces.
There is a very large chance of democracy breaking out in Iraq because of the actions of the US, and particularly the actions of its military, and those of Bremer.
It destroyed feudal tyranny in Kurdish and Shiite areas and, not surprisingly, it turns out about 90% of the people in these places have desire for modernity, freedom and democracy.
It's not clear to me how much of the old feudal tyranny's bureaucracy has yet been destroyed in the area N and W of Baghdad. Folk from these areas were the operatives and beneficiaries of the tyranny so they are resisting their loss of position and wealth. Tough.
A particular tyranny is easy to topple. Democratic forms are easy to put in place. What is far more difficult to replace is the 400 year old tax farming tradition Saddam, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt inherited from the Ottomans. Nepotism, bribe taking, benefit peddling, conversion, and ultimately, outright robbery and murder, are norms in this tradition, not exceptions. Thus law doesn't have universal application; its application depends on caprice.
Caprice is what your representatives in Iraq have been resisting for the last year. And it's what the majority of Iraqis are judging your representatives on. Does law apply to Americans in Iraq? Does it apply to Iraqis, also? Does it apply to everyone?
It will appear to the Iraqis the US folk certainly apply their law in an uncapricious way to their miscreant military personnel. They will see penalties applied. Despite the ferocious commentary by some Iraqis and Americans, the outcome will rebound to the credit of the US in Iraq.
Someone posted here today an article from a reliable Lebanese newspaper about how Shiite tribal leaders were demanding Moqtar Sadr submit himself to to the law because they say, it must apply to all Iraqis.
This is in the best tradition of tribal leaders who want to abdicate responsibility for running and adjudicating blood feuds and the transference of shame and honour.
There are parallels in European history. Pre-feudal tribes worked the same process against paramount leaders and demanded law be codified because they rejected the caprice and resulting constant bloodletting. As local security and lawmaking improved, people relied less on extended tribe and clan and relied more on near family. They gave over apportionment of shame and honour to courts and moots.
Folk had to renegotiate these things under the feudal tyrannies and issues of capriciousness and trust remained strong and so folk tended to marry near relatives and look out for the families' interests first - nepotism was a virtue.
This continued until post-feudal institutions became trustworthy - first in the cities and then in the countryside. Nepotism in the public realm then stopped being a virtue and even became a crime under certain circumstances.
This has not happened in Iraq since the arrangements there, as in most ME countries, remained at a feudal stage. Many folk, perhaps even a majority who lived under feudal arrangements didn't like it because fealty was compelled - there were lots of rebellions - but since what they had were lemons, they made lemonade, and worked, as best they could, a system many saw as thoroughly corrupt.
Corruption is what folk know and is what's habitual for many, and is the single greatest enemy of democracy in Iraq.
I think they can overcome it. Nepotism and all the rest becomes unnecessary now the feudal arrangements are destroyed. Now the Husseins aren't looting and pillaging it, the commercial world in Iraq seems to be operating fairly cleanly thanks to systems put in place by the GA and to the resurgent legal system now free of Baathist looters.
Problems remain within the public system. It's huge and pervasive because of its socialist antecedents and there habits of corruption remain - although much diminished right now because many of the looters have been dismissed - because there's no oversight or proper auditing and reporting. Bremer and his Iraqi colleagues are attempting to put such controls in place and they're also trying to make sure the judiciary remains independent and uncorrupted. But ultimately, it depends on the Iraqis to demand and enforce standards.
In this respect, tribalism is far more flexible than some of its recent history suggests. It can as easily go for the level playing field as for winner-take-all. Your Special Forces people and others have been speaking with tribal folk about this ever since the Coalition invaded. From the point of view of tribal leaders, negotiating equal pain (as in non-corruption) can be far more attractive and profitable than stuggling in winner-take-all contests (unequal pain). Tribes are small units and it's much to their advantage to have pan-Iraq law than myriad arrangements between individual tribes and a tyrannnical centre which can play them off against each other or simply destroy a tribe pour encourager les autres.
For it to work they require auditing and transparent process, or as one of your presidents said, "Trust, but verify." In this context this means balance of powers, solid constitutional arrangements and democracy to avoid another tribe like Saddam's bunch from hijacking the country. Getting agreement and action on this basis is not beyond the realm and abilities of tribal leaders; their lives are constantly taken up in painstaking negotiation. There is a lot at stake for them and they are in a situation many must have dreamed of for a long time as they tried to manouvre around the tyranny of Hussein. |
