Democracy in Iraq
posted by Gavin | 1:35 AM
Yesterday, Iraq voted in members of its new 275 member National Assembly. The Assembly is similar in some respects to the U.S. Continental Congress, which produced the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and, when the Articles failed, the U.S. Constitution. The Iraqi National Assembly must elect an Assembly presidential council. This council will then determine a prime minister and cabinet. Once that is done, the other primary responsibility of this Assembly will be to draft a constitution by the middle of August for public referendum. By this time next year, if nothing derails the plan, another national election will determine the first government as defined in the constitution.
Despite the worst fears of many both within and outside of Iraq, Sunday's election day resulted in a few dozen casualties. According to the latest news reports, 1/4 of those were attackers. Turnout appears to be higher than expected, but with a noticeable lower turnout in Sunni areas. The threats of violence did not manifest itself to a great degree, nor did it appear to have dissuaded many from participating.
Personally, I think it's great that the elections were held. Nothing is ever perfect, but it is important for the Iraqis to become more involved in governing themselves and this is a crucial step. This is but the beginning, however. The results of the election, the composition of the Assembly, the contested Assembly and public debates on the constitution... 2005 is going to be one of the most challenging years for Iraq and will shape its future. It's certainly too early to say democracy is going to succeed, but it is off to a better start than I hoped for.
The Bush administration has created two doctrines in the aftermath of September 11. One is focused on the short-term and emphasizes pre-emption as an extension of the national right of self-defense in the face of a building, concerted threat. The other doctrine looks to the long term and works to realize the spread of democracy through the Middle East in order to reduce the risk of future conflict. These doctrines, by their very nature, are going to exert a dramatic influence on the world stage for years to come. While I have not been much impressed with the administration's record in enacting these doctrines, I do admire the willingness to try to do something beyond just maintaining the status-quo.
I'm not really a fan of pre-emption, but I realize it needs to be an option considered. I do like the idea of encouraging democracy in other countries and I really do hope that it is successful. Iraq and Afghanistan may become examples of how democracy can function in that kind of society. Other countries, such as Jordan, Iran, Egypt, and to a tiny extent Saudi Arabia have been making progress towards a democratic style of government at some level. Baring a traumatic experience like war and invasion, the process isn't going to happen quickly. But I think it is happening, and that is encouraging.
Despite the worst fears of many both within and outside of Iraq, Sunday's election day resulted in a few dozen casualties. According to the latest news reports, 1/4 of those were attackers. Turnout appears to be higher than expected, but with a noticeable lower turnout in Sunni areas. The threats of violence did not manifest itself to a great degree, nor did it appear to have dissuaded many from participating.
Personally, I think it's great that the elections were held. Nothing is ever perfect, but it is important for the Iraqis to become more involved in governing themselves and this is a crucial step. This is but the beginning, however. The results of the election, the composition of the Assembly, the contested Assembly and public debates on the constitution... 2005 is going to be one of the most challenging years for Iraq and will shape its future. It's certainly too early to say democracy is going to succeed, but it is off to a better start than I hoped for.
The Bush administration has created two doctrines in the aftermath of September 11. One is focused on the short-term and emphasizes pre-emption as an extension of the national right of self-defense in the face of a building, concerted threat. The other doctrine looks to the long term and works to realize the spread of democracy through the Middle East in order to reduce the risk of future conflict. These doctrines, by their very nature, are going to exert a dramatic influence on the world stage for years to come. While I have not been much impressed with the administration's record in enacting these doctrines, I do admire the willingness to try to do something beyond just maintaining the status-quo.
I'm not really a fan of pre-emption, but I realize it needs to be an option considered. I do like the idea of encouraging democracy in other countries and I really do hope that it is successful. Iraq and Afghanistan may become examples of how democracy can function in that kind of society. Other countries, such as Jordan, Iran, Egypt, and to a tiny extent Saudi Arabia have been making progress towards a democratic style of government at some level. Baring a traumatic experience like war and invasion, the process isn't going to happen quickly. But I think it is happening, and that is encouraging.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home