Monday, January 31, 2005


A lot of folks are trying to figure out what these elections really mean. Some are pointing out scary parallels with the Vietnam elections of '67, some are trumpeting the same sorts of oratories we heard when Saddam was captured, and some are saying that it don't mean much.

I like important events to have morals, and my take on this is simple: going forward, no matter how this thing ends, we can't blame it on the Iraqis.

Overwhelmingly, this election demonstrated that there is widespread support for the institution of representative democracy. Iraqis didn't boycott elections becuase they preferred an alternative form of government (say, restoration of the monarchy); they didn't stay home out of fear; hell, they didn't even demand a perfect election process as a condition of participation. They voted. This is good news to anyone who wants to create representative democracy in Iraq--the people are willing to not just go along with it, but to risk their lives for it.

But at the end of the day, this condition is necessary but not sufficient for a successful democracy. It's not enough that the people of Iraq are brave and eager. There's an army with its own agenda, which may or may not coincide with those of the Iraqi people. There's an organized insurgency with many different factions pushing its own interests. So, it's good news that the Iraqi people, en masse, want a peaceful, representative governing process. Unfortunately, what they want doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Still, when this all ends, I don't want to hear neocons talking about how "those people" can't rule themselves peaceably. From every indication, they've got what it takes. From here on out, it's all on us.


Blogger rokkgod said...

I was surfing around and found another George Bush site.George Bush Doesn't Care About Black People This place has a ton of funny videos and mp3s.

3:46 AM


Post a Comment

<< Home