The All-Knowing Michael Ledeen
Offers us some of the quality punditry that's gotten us into this mess:
I'm with you, the stories coming out of Iraq are very bad, let's hope it works out differently--after all, the drafters in Baghdad surely know that most Iraqis are against a sharia-dominated state, and the odds are that if they write such a document, they'll be rejected. I'm also concerned because our current ambassador, Zal Khalilzad, was previously ambassador in Afghanistan and he sat still for a constitution that called the country an "Islamic Republic," fulfilling the demands of the Iranians.
After the first Gulf War, key decision-makers explained that one reason they didn't depose Saddam Hussein was the likely emergence of a Shiite theocracy to replace him. Before the second Gulf War, anti-war people widely predicted that one likely consequence of invading Iraq would be the creation of a Shiite theocracy. Hawks assured us all that this was wrong, and Iraqis had no love for sharia, citing Ahmed Chalabi as their reliable source. Well, when Chalabi got to the country, he quickly became a supporter of Shiite theocracy. Now we have the key Shiite political parties -- the clear winners of the country's first democratic election -- demanding theocracy. And Ledeen still assures us that this isn't what Iraqis want.
Based on what?
And if that Ledeen piece doesn't meet the standard for quality punditry, how about this followup from Jonah:
Indeed, where the idealistic and realistic strands meet is in the need to turn Iraq into a stable nation en route to democratic bourgeosification.
August 22, 2005 7:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly, I don't think that Matthew understands the word "theocracy". Since Iraq will assuredly democratic, Matthew is most certainly wrong in the use of that word.
August 22, 2005 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
It depends on your definition of "democratic." I think most people would agree that Iran is functionally a theocracy, but they do have an elected parliament and president and all the bells and whistles of democratic governance. The Iraqi government could very well have the FORM of a democracy while governing in a practical sense as a theocracy.
August 22, 2005 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Matthew,
It makes little sense to view this as punditry. When you understand this piece as part and parcel of Ledeen's work as a spy for the Iranians, it makes some sense. The basic plan is to make Bush policy so unbelievably assinine that, American credibility and soft power takes an enormous hit. I wish we had Ledeen on our side.
August 22, 2005 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Based on what? Based on the stale rhetoric coming out of the west wing. Based on the presumption that the Iraqis will embrace the west's vision of equality of all while holding firm to the teachings of the Koran. Assuming that the Kurds, Shia and Sunnis will suddenly, reverse course and decide they are willing to peacefully co-exist. Based on the premise that Tehran will not/isn't looking to expand the sphere of influence in Iraq. Based on the hope that we can somehow make the disaster we have created in Iraq better.
That is a theory based on alot of "what ifs" and hopes. A wing and a prayer...
August 22, 2005 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
BBHaywood - that's not correct at all. In Iran, the "elected" parliament and president are not elected in free and fair elections, since most of the candidates are disqualified before the election by the religious authorities before the elections even occur. Since that won't be the case in Iraq, there would be a major qualitative difference between the two countries.
As to whether there would be a "practical sense" of theocracy, I'm not sure what the means. To me, you are merely stating that religious figures will have in important role in Iraqi society. Well, no Constitution will change that. What we are interested in ais the degree to which there will be a theocracy in a LEGAL, not practical, sense -- that is, the degree to which the laws of Iraq will be governed by religion. (And, let's remember that Iraq's laws TODAY are deeply entangled with religion. Laws on marriage and divorce ALREADY depend on the religion of the people in question, for example. And courts ALREADY defer to religious authorities in such matters.)
August 22, 2005 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
*SIGH*
I miss the old days of "Michael Ledeen: The Iran-Contra criminal".
August 22, 2005 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shiites and Kurds were sending a draft constitution to parliament on Monday that would fundamentally change Iraq, transforming the country into a loose federation, with a weak central administration governed by Islamic law, negotiators said.
-Draft Constitution Would Fundamentally Change Iraq
theocracy: A government ruled by or subject to religious authority
-Dictionary.com
August 22, 2005 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
If by democracy you simply mean that people vote, then a democracy can be a theocracy.
If the majority of the country votes to impose Islamic Law on the land, the fact that it was approved by a majority of the people does not make it less theocratic.
That's the whole point of, e.g., a bill of rights - to insure that minority rights are protected, even if the majority votes against them. If the majority of Iraqis decide to impose Islamic Law, it shows that we have created a theocracy, albeit a majoritarian one, whether or not you want to admit it.
August 22, 2005 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, Al, if it turns out that the constitution enshrines Islamic law as the highest law of the land, would you say it would be a theocracy?
Well, that depends on what you mean by "enshrines Islamic law as the highest law of the land".
Do you mean that clerics actually make the laws? Then, yes, it is a theocracy. I don't think that's what the Constitution will say.
On the other hand, do you mean that the Constitution will provide that laws passed by a democratically elected parliament may not "contradict" Islam? Then, no, that's not a theocracy. Indeed, the TAL, under which Iraq is governed today, has that very provision. The TAL also provides that no law will contradict the principles of democracy or certain fundamental human rights. That all doesn't make for a theocracy.
August 22, 2005 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think this is right. After all, Israel is not a "theocracy" but has implemented Jewish religious law in many situations. This principle applies to many countries.
August 22, 2005 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
And of course, Ledeen and Glenn Reynolds are playing their favorite game: Blame the State Department for the fact that our lies aren't working.
I made some comments here and here on my blog.
August 22, 2005 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Finally, would you say that the war has been worth it if the final result is a theocratic client state of Iran?
Apologies - I had forgotten to answer this. Again, depends on what you mean by "theocratic client state". If Iran and Iraq have close relations, like France and Germany or USA and Israel, that's fine. If it is more like Syria and Lebanon (until this year), then, no, it wouldn't be worth it. but, really, what are the chances of the latter? I'd say about nil.
August 22, 2005 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
August 22, 2005 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think people sometimes put to much stock in the idea of voting for politicians. I know this could be misconstrued and taken out of context by someone who wants to attack me, but what I mean is that voting for politicians in no way determines whether or not everyday life is (or is not) repressive, desperate, and anarchic, which surely is an accurate description of much of Iraq today.
Simply put, without things like the rule of law or a basic functioning civil society, a country is a living hell, whether or not there are elections. For example, today, I would certainly choose life in virtually every other country in the world to that of Iraq. And this includes Iran.
August 22, 2005 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
In Iran, the "elected" parliament and president are not elected in free and fair elections, since most of the candidates are disqualified before the election by the religious authorities before the elections even occur.
And yet, the religious conservative won, beating the reform candidate, replacing 8 years of leadership by a reform government. Somebody over there apparently likes conservative religious figures in power. A whole lot of somebodies. 62% of the voters, in fact.
August 22, 2005 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The draft constitution is available all over the place. Take a look and you will see that talk of theocracy is misplaced.
The extent to which clerics get their way in terms of dress and women's rights and so on will be a long drawn out battle in the new Iraq, as it should be in a democracy.
Even in Iran, which is basically a faux democracy, the clerics have had to bend to popular will on these matters.
August 23, 2005 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is exactly right. Having actually read the provisions of the draft constitution, it is clear that any talk of "theorcracy" is either (a) utterly ignorant or (b) deliberately misleading in furtherance of a partisan agenda. I'll let the reader decide which of those two choices applies to the New York Times.
August 24, 2005 4:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Ledeen is correct that most Iraqi's don't want a theocracy. Unfortunately, it is the theocrats who are organized, and they are willing to use violance against moderates.
August 25, 2005 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink