Face off: Learn from mistakes of past, let Iraq form own government

The plan seemed perfect. It was June 28, 1919, and the Allies
had won a long and arduous war with Germany. At the Paris Peace
Conference on this fateful day, the Germans signed the Treaty of
Versailles, an agreement requiring Germany to surrender all German
colonies, as the League of Nations mandated. The post-war
government set up in Germany was expected to bring peace and
prosperity to the nation. However, the Allies’ vision for
democratic government did not go as smoothly as expected.

The post-war Weimer government had to contend with the double
economic crisis of having to pay steep reparations to the Allies
and suffering through an out-of-control, inflationary boom. The
social conflict between the “haves” and the
“have-nots” proved too great of a strain on a country
trying to develop a democratic political system. Thus, the
emergence of the democratic government the Allies were so anxious
to see evolve in the war-torn nation proved to be too much and too
soon for Germany.

Such is the case in Iraq. Hopes for an immediate democracy in
Iraq were damaged when it was discovered that many Shiites, who
make up 60 percent of the Iraqi population, would prefer a
government with a strong religious identity. Many in the Bush
administration are opposed to allowing Iraq to set up its own
government and hold that the only acceptable type of government to
replace the toppled regime is a democratic one. However, there is
something to be said in allowing a nation to set up its own
government, as a system that works for some might not necessarily
work for others.

Joseph C. Wilson IV, the last senior U.S. diplomat in Baghdad,
said, “We’re just beginning to pay the price for not fully
understanding that Iraq has its own set of political relationships
that depend on anthropological and sociological structures we
didn’t grasp.”

The Bush administration is backing Ahmad Chalabi, the secular
Shiite leader of the Iraqi National Congress, in order to establish
a pro-Western government. However, Iraqi clerics have recently
issued statements indicating they will oppose any U.S.-backed or
controlled Iraqi government. Thousands of common Iraqis have taken
up this call and rallied against a continued U.S. presence in the
country. Even the nation of Jordan, a strong U.S. ally, recently
issued a statement warning that Chalabi lacks credibility.

In light of these events, a Muslim theocracy seems possible in
Iraq. However, things might not be as glum as some think.

Even if a Muslim theocracy is set up, the longevity record for
this type of government is not good. Generally, theocracies are
short-lived due to both external and internal factors. Internally,
clerics trained in religious dogma are rarely skilled in economic
matters and have difficulty maintaining a modern society.

Externally, rulers outside of theocracies fear the religious
dogma backed by political power in these types of governments and
isolate the theocracy. This isolation breeds a citizenry fascinated
with the outside and an underground opposition to the regime.

Recent instances in Iran allude to an increasingly democratic
state. For example, the election of Muhammad Khatami in 1997 proved
that the Iranians hunger for something other than conservatism.
Since Khatami took office, young people and students especially
have been more politically active. For example, a recent protest
against the arrest of a history lecturer proves that Iran is taking
small steps toward democracy. Like Iran, Iraq has to ease into a
new government, and we run the risk of creating an unhappy group of
Iraqi citizens if we throw them into a government they are not
ready for.

The future of Iraq is unknown. We should not forget the
difficulty experienced in setting up a democracy in post-war
Germany and the dissension that ensued as a result. It was this
dissension that allowed Hitler to come to power. We should allow
Iraq to set up its own government, because change comes
gradually.