The democratic revolution marches on...

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Plato:

True.

But I think the policies to support democracy in Iraq will end up being more or less similar to the policies regarding other countries.

Now, the war has removed a very brutal dictator, which is pretty good (and which is the one achievement the pro-war people can be really proud of). However, I don't think that war was either necessary nor sufficient to make Iraq democratic in the long run. It rushed the headstart, which saved probably many people from torture. But that's the most important difference it made, IMHO.

It would be hard to disagree with that opinion due to any credible evidence (i.e. the lack of a continuing Sadaam regime). However, it is quite clear that Sadaam indended his son's to rule after him in a dynastic transfer of power. How long is the long run? The problem of the ME has been boiling to eruption for decades. IMO the eruption was near (granted that this opinion is tainted by 911, but not totally).

My supposition is that action or intervention by the western democratic powers was the only chance of difusing an ever growing powderkeg. Europeans disagree with this; I understand that. I would ask you, however, to point to actions that the European school of thought took that resulted in greater freedom or elections.

At the end of the day we must look to results. The results of elections and electoral reform in the ME, no matter that they have imperfections and problems, are tangible evidence of movement in the correct direction.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by lord of the mark too soon to say.

...check back in 50 years

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS

As for Sistani and Bush, I don't know why you want to make it Sistani v. Bush.

The original admin. plans, as far as they have ever had a plan, was to allow the interim government write the constituion, and then put it up for a vote. Sistani demanded elections ASAP, the occupation authorities at first resisted, but when Sistani flexed his political muscle, the Bush admin. had to cave.

Better for them that they did cave, cause a constituion writen by an unelected cabal placed by the occupier would have lost most legitimacy.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DanS
It seems you labor under the misimpression that the orange revolution was undemocratic. I don't know how you can believe this.

That's very simple:

Yanukovych = supported by one half of the country
Yushchenko = supported by one half of the country

Yushchenko loses, in what is probably a fixed election. Orange revolution = Yushchenko's supporters seizing an opportunity to have the election redone, to install their champion.

Even if the second election had been full of sleaze, but this time promoting Yushchenko (and there were actually some scandals hinting in that direction, although they were barely mentioned in the west), the orange revolution would have been happy.

Imagine the people in Washington invading the supreme court and the Congress in 2000, blocking the capitol for a month, in order to have Gore win. Their argument would have been boosted by the Florida scandal. Imagine they eventually get what they want, and Gore becomes the winner (or new elections are held). Would you have called it a Democratic Revolution? 'cuz that's what you're doing right now for Ukraine.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Dissident
forced democracy

voluntary democracy

Forced democracy is not bad. Forcing democracy is.

[germanos]

While I applaud recent events in Lebanon (which is probably the reason for this thread), I must say that by no means these events could be described as a 'democratic revolution' and to lump Lebanon into the grant scheme of a 'global democratic revolution' is tendacious at best.

Lebanon is an awkward place, certainly when viewed from the normative western view of the near-east.
If anything, Lebanon shows that democracy (in the sense of a multi-ethnic and/or multi-religious nation/society) can exist in the near-east, or possibly even in the arab/muslim world at large.

The devastating civil war (by large triggered through external factors (read: palestinians driven around/persecuted by most nations surrounding them)) was 'pacified' at the end of the cold war by the countries in the near-east themselves. The so-called Taif-accords (signed in Saudi-Arabia, and from what I know with little Western influence/pressure applied) allowed for a restoration of the situation before the civil war, and a multi-party system was put (again) into place.
Lebanon, despite being under firm Syrian control, regained a large part of its souvereignty and it has a largely functioning multi-party parliament.
Besides that, Lebanon has a functioning and largely free press, with many newspapers, TV-stations and the like who are almost completely free of government control.

The recent events in Lebanon (with an administration that even steps down due to public pressure) is more a sign of the deep-rooted 'democratic' tradition that exists in Lebanon then a sign of a 'revolution' taking place.

Similar arguements could be made for Egypt, Jordan and Tunesia. Turkey and to some extend even Pakistan could be viewed as muslim/arab countries that do upheold some democratic principles.
So, if anything, todays events in Lebanon show that there is far less need to bring democracy to the near- and middle-east (by force as advocated by Bush and Co) as we are lead to beleive.

[DanS]

Even if the second election had been full of sleaze, but this time promoting Yushchenko (and there were actually some scandals hinting in that direction, although they were barely mentioned in the west), the orange revolution would have been happy.

How do you know this? I challenge you to produce the evidence.

Imagine the people in Washington invading the supreme court and the Congress in 2000, blocking the capitol for a month, in order to have Gore win. Their argument would have been boosted by the Florida scandal. Imagine they eventually get what they want, and Gore becomes the winner (or new elections are held). Would you have called it a Democratic Revolution? 'cuz that's what you're doing right now for Ukraine.

That's not a good comparison. We all would have voted again and the results would have been similar. In the case of Ukraine, the swing was sufficiently large between elections that the question is begged of whether funny business was going on in the first elections.

[Ramo]

The original admin. plans, as far as they have ever had a plan, was to allow the interim government write the constituion, and then put it up for a vote. Sistani demanded elections ASAP, the occupation authorities at first resisted, but when Sistani flexed his political muscle, the Bush admin. had to cave.

Better for them that they did cave, cause a constituion writen by an unelected cabal placed by the occupier would have lost most legitimacy.

I'd add that if Sistani had his way, the elections would've occurred several months earlier, meaning no Fallujah and thus no Sunni boycott. Sectarianism itself might have been a far lesser problem.

The rationale the US used in putting off elections for over a year after the initial huge protests Sistani organized was the supposed need to take a census of Iraq. Sistani suggested using ration cards. A year later, a census wasn't taken and ration cards were eventually used.

Just plain inept.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

There is no conducive evidence that the election was any fairer the second time than the first one. It is very easy to circumvent the international observers' attention once you know their modus operandi.

All the "evidence" we have is western organisations congratulating Ukraine for having elected the West's *****. I'm not inclined to believe them any more than Russian organisations.

Which is flabbergasting, considering all we know about the OSCE. Forget it Dan, Spiffs drunk Serbs Kool aid on this one.

#4 is especially important. After his victory, Yushchenko had the choice between trying to re-unite a country that was deeply divided, or to install his caste in power. He installed Timochenko, who is widely loathed in the East for her role in the orange revolution, and generally disliked for the massive gobs of money she made during the abusive privatizations.

Hes trying to make a CHANGE. as for her role she is trying to change the results of those privatizations - the beneficiaries oppose her.

[pchang]

So, which was first - DanS or this?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo

The original admin. plans, as far as they have ever had a plan, was to allow the interim government write the constituion, and then put it up for a vote. Sistani demanded elections ASAP, the occupation authorities at first resisted, but when Sistani flexed his political muscle, the Bush admin. had to cave.

Better for them that they did cave, cause a constituion writen by an unelected cabal placed by the occupier would have lost most legitimacy.

I'd add that if Sistani had his way, the elections would've occurred several months earlier, meaning no Fallujah and thus no Sunni boycott. Sectarianism itself might have been a far lesser problem.

The rationale the US used in putting off elections for over a year after the initial huge protests Sistani organized was the supposed need to take a census of Iraq. Sistani suggested using ration cards. A year later, a census wasn't taken and ration cards were eventually used.

Just plain inept.

come on Ramo do you really think earlier elections would have been better - a year earlier there was far less developed press in Iraq, there was less political organization, less experience of local parties, etc. We could well have had a much less democratic election - I dont know that it makes sense to play that particular what if game.

[DanS]

While I applaud recent events in Lebanon (which is probably the reason for this thread)

It was the reason for this thread. First off, note that I don't think Lebanon is finished yet. It might run off the rails and turn violent or whatever. At a minimum, I totally didn't expect the protests and resignations.

I think with regard to Lebanon that you are giving the parliament and government too many unearned democratic bona fides. It's only been a couple of months since a change in the constitution was rammed through upon Syrian instruction to give Lahoud another term.

[Spiffor]

Which is flabbergasting, considering all we know about the OSCE. Forget it Dan, Spiffs drunk Serbs Kool aid on this one.

Do you know an international observer? I do. I am the first westerner she met who didn't swallow the "Yushchenko is the good guy, Yanukovych is the bad guy" propaganda meme. (Note, she's French and studies in the same cursus as I do).

In her work, she had to spend only little time in each voting booth, where she made sure that the arrangement of the voting booth corresponded to the electoral law. She was dependent on a translator. She had very little briefing time, and had the general impression not to really know what she was doing. And most importantly, it struck her as obvious that any fraudulous voting booth could resume fraud once she left. But if during her very imperfect "control" of the voting booth, she labeled it as clean, then the OSCE would label the whole voting booth as "clean" as well.

Hes trying to make a CHANGE. as for her role she is trying to change the results of those privatizations - the beneficiaries oppose her.

A change compared to whom? If anything, Kuchma wasn't systematically favouring one half of Ukraine over another (he had both Yanukovych and Yushchenko as his prime ministers at different times). The first actual political decision of Pres. Yushchenko, OTOH, is to nomninate one of the most divisive personalities in the country (if not THE most) as Prime Minister. I don't see it as a progress at all.

[Ramo]

come on Ramo do you really think earlier elections would have been better - a year earlier there was far less developed press in Iraq, there was less political organization, less experience of local parties, etc. We could well have had a much less democratic election - I dont know that it makes sense to play that particular what if game.

Maybe not a year, but several months earlier, absolutely. As for political experience, the run-up to the election had no practical campaigning in large parts of the country. It was electioneering by posters. The results of which was a sectarian election pure and simple. People voted their ethno-religious group. I'm not sure how you can get much less democratic. I don't see how those extra months of possible campaigning is worth the extremizing of the population.

[Az]

Spiffor is completely right: both sides of the ballot box in Ukraine were evil. It's simply the case of the "right" evil winning, for the west.

Spiffor is, as he almost always is, completely right: in his analysis, and in his insights into some of the inner workings, all of those check in with my data, and personal knowledge as well.