[eklipse]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3409115.stm

Tens of thousands of Shia Muslims have marched against coalition proposals for a transfer of power, just hours before the US seeks UN backing for the plan.

The rally in Baghdad follows a peaceful protest in Basra calling for direct elections to a transitional government.

US administrator Paul Bremer will ask the United Nations to support its plan for an interim selected authority.

Any sustained opposition by Iraq's Shia majority would cause serious problems for the US, correspondents say.

Monday's protest saw thousands upon thousands of Iraqis marching through the capital, many clasping each other's hands above their heads, to demand full general elections.

The BBC's Caroline Hawley in Baghdad says the Shias - who were repressed for decades by Saddam Hussein - fear they will be marginalised again under the US plan, which allows regional bodies created by the Americans to select a transitional parliament.

"Yes, yes to elections; no, no to selection," was one of the main rallying cries.

So now we have concrete evidence that Iraqis themselves are getting quite incensed with US plans for their country's future.

Is the Bush administration really going to turn around and say 'No - you're wrong. Iraq should be run our way'?

If so, how is this better than dictatorship?

Could this be why Bush & Co. are suddenly becoming very 'chummy' with UN again? - in the hope that formal UN backing might add some greater form of legitimacy to their plans?

[Spheric Harlot]

Wait - these people were blocking traffic?

Have them all arrested for infringing on others' right to freedom: It's the American Way of Democracy.

-s*

[Troll]

Just as the Bush Administration was committed to war way before it approached the UN, the Bush Administration is committed to leaving Iraq in June irrespective of what happens between then and now. I think the Neocons realise that if they don't get the hell out of there by June, their chances of getting reelected are significantly diminished.

You will see an attempt to spin the situation in Iraq to make it look positive, media manipulation, Bush and his gang castigating journalists and politicians that call attention to the situation, but you won't see them trying to do anything on the ground but wind down to June. At that stage, irrespective of what has been put in place, the Americans will pull out. The last thing you will see happening now, is the Americans admitting they were wrong and calling a general election. That's a timetable they won't work with.

You got it right when you say this is why they're being chummy with the UN, but expect the right to tell you that Iraqis are much better off having George decide their fate for them than Saddam. After all George hasn't tortured or killed Iraqis yet ... well not many ... not as many as Saddam ... yet.

[boots]

It is exactly why they are going to the UN. If the UN blesses they regional caucus model, then this leading Shi'it cleric will not have (it is assumed) the clout he now has.

I'm of two minds. There is a danger in majority tyranny. that must be avoided. I think this is why the US wants the regional caucus model to go forward. Once that part of the constitution gets worked out, general elections would follow. As it is, the Shia would get almost absolute power in a general election, and they know it. That's why they are pushing for it so hard.

It is likely to get very ugly in the next few months.

[Troll]

Originally posted by boots:
I'm of two minds. There is a danger in majority tyranny. that must be avoided. I think this is why the US wants the regional caucus model to go forward. Once that part of the constitution gets worked out, general elections would follow. As it is, the Shia would get almost absolute power in a general election, and they know it. That's why they are pushing for it so hard.

I agree with you to a point. Giving the majority absolute power would be dangerous. But I think the issue here is more basic than that. Iraqis haven't bought into the form the state should take, let alone what minority protections should exist within that state. The US has attempted to impose a state structure on Iraq without consulting properly with Iraqis. Without consensus on the structure, it makes little sense to hold elections because all you will do is create a sense of injustice being entrenched.

Carl Bildt, the former Swedish prime minister who acted as the first administrator in Bosnia-Hercegovina said it better than I can:

"It is only when you achieve a consensus on the structure of a state that you can move forward towards electing the representatives to govern that state. Then, elections could unite, otherwise they risk causing greater division."

[Millennium]

The bit about getting out in June is an interesting bit of political chess. It goes rather hand-in-hand with the Terror Alert system.

No, really. Think about it. After 9/11, people railed against the Bush Administration, claiming that it didn't tell the people enough about its terrorism intelligence. So in response, the Terror Alert system gets initiated, with its perpetual yellow/orange state (which is probably an accurate reflection of how the intelligence agencies take it, but this means it will never go below yellow as a matter of policy). When people complain about it, the administration can blame it on the liberals who clamored for such a system.

Now, people want us out of Iraq at any cost. The Bush Administration is giving the people exactly what they asked for. It will fail, and they know it will fail, and when that happens they can blame it all on the liberals who insisted that they get out before Iraq was ready.

I will say this for the Bush Administration: I hate them, but they are absolutely brilliant when it comes to political maneuvering. Discredit the liberals by setting up pseudo-liberal policies designed to fail, and then point to them as examples of why liberalism is a "failure". The Terror Alert system, the exit strategy in Iraq, NCLB... these are all nothing more than the most famous in a long string of political Trojan horses. Or perhaps "monkey's paws" are a better metaphor; these are what people have asked for, to the letter, and yet by no means to the spirit.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Millennium:
The bit about getting out in June is an interesting bit of political chess. It goes rather hand-in-hand with the Terror Alert system.

No, really. Think about it. After 9/11, people railed against the Bush Administration, claiming that it didn't tell the people enough about its terrorism intelligence. So in response, the Terror Alert system gets initiated, with its perpetual yellow/orange state (which is probably an accurate reflection of how the intelligence agencies take it, but this means it will never go below yellow as a matter of policy). When people complain about it, the administration can blame it on the liberals who clamored for such a system.

Now, people want us out of Iraq at any cost. The Bush Administration is giving the people exactly what they asked for. It will fail, and they know it will fail, and when that happens they can blame it all on the liberals who insisted that they get out before Iraq was ready.

I will say this for the Bush Administration: I hate them, but they are absolutely brilliant when it comes to political maneuvering. Discredit the liberals by setting up pseudo-liberal policies designed to fail, and then point to them as examples of why liberalism is a "failure". The Terror Alert system, the exit strategy in Iraq, NCLB... these are all nothing more than the most famous in a long string of political Trojan horses. Or perhaps "monkey's paws" are a better metaphor; these are what people have asked for, to the letter, and yet by no means to the spirit.

a very insightful post, and an interesting one. That may well be the strategy, but I think its dangerous to claim only liberals wanted something done after 9.11

[DeathToWindows]

Yes, they're good at manuvering, but they themselves are a disgrace to their parents.

That said, we ****ed up iraq, we need to fix it - or maybe we should just let bush do it out of pocket...

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by boots:
There is a danger in majority tyranny.

Can't "majority tyranny" also be referred to as democracy?

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Can't "majority tyranny" also be referred to as democracy?

Old response that won't make a difference to you: That's why the US is a republic, not a democracy. That's why there's a thing called the electoral college as opposed to direct democracy.

[christ]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Old response that won't make a difference to you: That's why the US is a republic, not a democracy.

The US is a republic, not a direct democracy (a republic is a type of democracy).

Haven't we been here before?

[vmarks]

Originally posted by christ:

Haven't we been here before?

Hence the words 'old response' -- and the fact that you posted as you did mean you didn't get the 'won't make a difference to you' bit-

There's a wide berth of subtleties that make a republic more than just 'a form of democracy.'

Thanks anyway.

[christ]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Hence the words 'old response' -- and the fact that you posted as you did mean you didn't get the 'won't make a difference to you' bit-

There's a wide berth of subtleties that make a republic more than just 'a form of democracy.'

Thanks anyway.

You are most welcome

There's a wide berth of subtleties that make a republic more than just 'a form of democracy.'

Yup, like there's a wide berth of subtleties that make a slipper more than just 'a form of shoe.', but it is still true, and pretending otherwise helps no-one's cause. It's a pointless distinction, unless, as I pointed out, you are distinguishing between 'direct' democracy and 'republic', which is just an 'indirect' democracy - people vote for people and or institutions which in turn choose who is to rule, and how they are to do it.

If what the US has is not considered as a democracy, it could be considered as a tyranny (the tyranny of the constitutional lawyer), which also, in its way, is true (but no more palatable).

Tell us again why you wish to make the distinction, and claim that the USA is not a democracy?

[boots]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Can't "majority tyranny" also be referred to as democracy?

Yes, but for most of the important things, we have checks in the system. Things like supermajority and the fact that we have judicial review, etc.

All of these are part of protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority. At least, that what the constitution has to say about it....

[deedar]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Wait - these people were blocking traffic?

Have them all arrested for infringing on others' right to freedom: It's the American Way of Democracy.

-s*

Only AFTER you try to disperse the mob by using tear gas and shooting rubber bullets into the crowd.

[christ]

Originally posted by deedar:
Only AFTER you try to disperse the mob by using tear gas and shooting rubber bullets into the crowd.

rubber?

[einmakom]

Originally posted by christ:

If what the US has is not considered as a democracy, it could be considered as a tyranny (the tyranny of the constitutional lawyer), which also, in its way, is true (but no more palatable).

Tell us again why you wish to make the distinction, and claim that the USA is not a democracy?

I'll bite-

The US's version of republicanism (the form of government, not the party) is indeed a form of democracy in it's implementation, but it's a special form meant to provide few powers to the Federal association and great powers to it's member states and their citizenry. Just lamely calling it 'a democracy' does it a disservice. It's a Republic. In fact there's nothing in the constitution that talks about citizens voting until the 15th amendment, which says that no man shall be denied a vote based on race, color, creed, or history of servitude. It's left up to the states. The 17th amendment follows that, saying "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote." - Before that, state legislatures could elect the Senators, in any fashion they so desired. - The fact that people get to vote is something that wasn't always so, and it is important to remember that when going about the formation of a fledgling government in a new country. If there were no value in examining how we got where we are, then we could just simply fax them a copy of the American Consitution and US Code, and walk away. But it isn't- avoiding tyranny of majority is something that the simple term 'democracy' doesn't begin to address, but Republic does.

Course, the other examples to follow are:
Not having a written constitution at all-

England doesn't. Israel doesn't.
Both are multi-party parliamentary system.

I think everyone is assuming the American model will be put in place because the rebuilding is American-led. I think there's some value in looking at the Israeli system (not a house of Lords/Commons, not a monarchy with subjects) and the Italian system. The Israeli system is interesting because votes-of-no-confidence can happen on a moments notice, calling for new elections.

That might satisfy the Iraqi protestors, who are so hot to trot for elections as it is.

[christ]

Originally posted by einmakom:
I'll bite-

The US's version of republicanism (the form of government, not the party) is indeed a form of democracy in it's implementation, but it's a special form meant to provide few powers to the Federal association and great powers to it's member states and their citizenry. Just lamely calling it 'a democracy' does it a disservice.

See, both you and vmarks agree with me, that a republic is a democracy.

But both of you seem to feel that is is doing a republic (in particular the US of A) adisservice by referring to it 'merely' as a democracy.

This, I fail to understand.

The UK is not 'merely' a democracy. Israel is not 'merely' a democracy. 'merely' is not a word that sould be used with 'democracy' (or 'lamely', or 'simply', or whatever pejorative term you feel applies).

Calling a German Shepherd is not to do the German Shepherd a disservice, it is simply placing it in a larger class. Calling a dog a mammal is the same. Calling it a Poodle, is doing it a disservice, but we are all agreed that that is not what is happening here.

Again, why the sensitivity over simple linguistics?

If the Iraqis were to say "We don't want to follow the example of the Americans, because they are not, and have no experience of being, a democracy, and therefore can't help us to establish a democracy in our country", there would be an (American) outcry, because they would be slighting the US by saying that they are not a democracy. It therefore appears to be an argument that no-one can win. And not only that, but it is pointless, too.

[boots]

Originally posted by christ:
See, both you and vmarks agree with me, that a republic is a democracy.

But both of you seem to feel that is is doing a republic (in particular the US of A) adisservice by referring to it 'merely' as a democracy.

I don't know that it's a disservice, but it isn't as precise. The specific flavor will end up mattering. A direct democracy (notice that this is a more precise description) can be problematic on larger scales and with a diverse population.

You might want a dog to guard your junkyard, but you want a German Shepherd, not a poodle.

[boots]

Originally posted by christ:
See, both you and vmarks agree with me, that a republic is a democracy.

But both of you seem to feel that is is doing a republic (in particular the US of A) adisservice by referring to it 'merely' as a democracy.

I don't know that it's a disservice, but it isn't as precise. The specific flavor will end up mattering. A direct democracy (notice that this is a more precise description) can be problematic on larger scales and with a diverse population.

You might want a dog to guard your junkyard, but you want a German Shepherd more than a poodle.

[christ]

Originally posted by boots:
I don't know that it's a disservice, but it isn't as precise. The specific flavor will end up mattering. A direct democracy (notice that this is a more precise description) can be problematic on larger scales and with a diverse population.

I don't disagree at all. This:

Originally posted by vmarks:
..the US is a republic, not a democracy...

is what I first took issue with.

This is not imprecise, this is flat wrong.

My original post just added the word 'direct', as you have done, but this appeared to lead vmarks into condescension, with his "There's a wide berth of subtleties that make a republic more than just 'a form of democracy.'"

1) I never said that "a republic is just 'a form of democracy'", the 'just ' was added by vmarks, and whether intentionally or not that characterised me as dissing the 'republic', which was never my intention.

2) We are all agreed that a republic is a form of democracy, so an infinite number of subtleties will fail to make it more than that. The German Shepherd is a form of dog - it will never be a sheep, no matter what subtleties you attach to it.

But it was only at base a wisecrack, made in the vain hope that it would encourage precision in speech, so never mind.

Bored now.

[boots]

Originally posted by christ:
I don't disagree at all. This:



is what I first took issue with.

This is not imprecise, this is flat wrong.

Ok, then there is no argument then.

[christ]

:: shakes hands ::