What Democracy in Iraq Would Look Like

There is a lot of debate and talk about democratizing the Arab world. What does not seem clear is how this is to be done, when, where first, and who should do this.

Let’s try to answer the first one first. Who should make democracy happen in the Arab world? The Arabs should. If anyone tries to impose it from the outside such changes will be unwelcome, especially if they are done violently – as we are now seeing. My sense is, however, that Arab people would be willing to seek knowledge to make democracy happen. However, changes can come only from inside the Arab world. There could be some appropriately distanced coaching from others. That gets us to the “how question.”

Democracy cannot be just placed in a country, where the leadership or occupiers just say: “now vote.” There are certain building blocks to real democracy that need to be put in place first. One is clearly the establishment of a rule of law. Without a rule of law, democracy can easily be turned into a sham. Without a rule of law, the powerful can make their own form of democracy and leave the less powerful in their wake. Part of the establishment of a rule of law is to set up an independent judiciary. This judiciary is not on the president’s payroll, or in his pocket. It is truly independent.

The concept of the rais (usually what a president is called in the Arab world) needs to be changed. The rais is the head of the country. He is also the brains and the controller. However, in democracy that is not the way it should work. There are other people involved in making foreign policy, budgeting, and tax policy decisions, for example. The establishment of a truly bicameral legislature with a large degree of independence from the president is vital.

Setting up checks and balances like an independent judiciary and a significantly independent bicameral legislature representing many political ideas will be tough.

As that is going on we get into some of the really tough parts of developing democracy: educating the people about democracy, setting up systems and institutions that help ensure that their democratic rights are preserved, and separating the powerful from the power in a way that in order to get power they need to deserve it. It would also help to keep checks on lobbyists and other pressure groups, which often distort the democratic process – as we see so often and so sadly in the U.S. on issues like energy, environment, and other legislative activities.

How could we educate the people about what democracy can be? My sense is they already know about it, but are not sure how to go about it. The education part that would be key is how to go about it. Once the Arabs get the hang of it, it will take off.

However, there is also a huge credibility gap in some Arab countries when it comes to elections. People vote, but they often get the sense that the outcome is already a done deal. That is not democracy. That is just going through the motions of pulling the lever on a voting machine or checking boxes off. The Arab people need to be constantly reassured over the first few years of democratic development that indeed they do count, and indeed this is a much fairer system than the ones that came before it.

Having independent electoral commissions free from the pressures from the powerful, and the already in power, would be ideal. There should also be a very free press—free enough that they are not shut down if they criticize the leadership or bring out into the open inequities, injustices and corruption. The best antiseptics to make sure democracy survives are transparency and countervailing powers. The press can be a powerful countervailing power.

One might say: “But isn’t the fear that these countervailing powers and transparencies could exist stopping some leaders from letting democracy develop?” The answer is, of course, yes.

Democracy in its better forms, and there is no perfect democracy, and it is often a noisy, unpredictable system, cannot allow for dynasties to exist. It cannot allow for opacity from, and in, the leadership. It cannot survive if only one set of ideas, however useless, is allowed to flourish without criticism. The door to allow change to happen needs to be open.

These countervailing powers, however, need to be allowed to develop. They need to be nourished and protected in the first few years by that rule of law, the judiciary, the press, intellectuals, business leaders, and more.

Democracy cannot allow a leader to fail miserably at economic and social development of his people, and see him get re-elected. Hence, democracy may be a way to force leaders in the Arab world to work with the developing countervailing powers to get the Arab world developing. Monopolies don’t last in the long run unless they are protected and subsidized at the expense of the people.

As the recent UNDP reports written by Arabs and mostly for Arabs shows, the record of the Arab world compared to many other parts of the world in human development is not what it could be given the natural talents and abilities of the great Arab people.

Democracy can also give voice to opposition parties. That is part of what democracy is all about. Giving voice may be a way to peace in a country. It may be a way to neutralize extremist elements. They may be good at yelling and screaming and making bombs, but these are all destructive behavioral patterns. All of that negative energy could be redirected at building a country and a region, rather than dragging them down.

The Arabs need to construct a new set of ways of doing things. Democracy may help them go in that direction. If the ways of doing things stays the same as they have been the Arab world is heading for very big trouble. It may also be inviting in further violent interventions, and more terrorism.

Democracy in its best forms is a rule by the people. People vote in their leaders, and they can vote them out after a certain time period. They can even recall them, as was learned in California recently, if the leadership is seen as not doing its job.

No democracy is perfect. Also, I am not writing this to preach the perfection of American democracy. It has many flaws. Here in the U.S. there are debates still about the 2000 election, the power of lobbyists, and the wealth of the senators and members of the cabinet. There are debates about how many hundreds of millions of dollars it takes to get elected president, and the tens of millions of dollars it takes to be elected a senator from a major state. These millions are to buy advertising, TV and radio air time, posters, letter-writing campaigns, travel costs, etc. These monies are regulated to some extent. There is a debate going on about whether these monies should be limited, and whether there should be greater regulation of campaign financing. When money buys access, democracy is eroded.

There are also debates on whether the press is truly free, and whether the rule of law works the same for everyone. Those who can afford the best lawyers often get a better deal than the poor kids from the ghettos. There is also a growing debate about the merits of the Patriot Act and other legislation and activities that have occurred since 9-11. Note: there are debates, and very public ones.

In most elections we are lucky to get more than 40 percent of the eligible voters to vote. Voter apathy hampers democratic development. It is also important to point out that universal suffrage, the right for all over a certain age to vote, was not common in the West until the twentieth century. Women could not vote throughout the U.S. until 1920, although some states and territories allowed women to vote as early as 1869 ( Wyoming). Women can vote in the U.S. I would not be surprised to see a woman president in my lifetime.

I am not saying copy American democracy. Maybe the Arabs could do an even better job at democracy than we have. Maybe we could do a better job developing democracy than we have.

The right to reasonably criticize is the patriotic duty of all citizens of all democratic states. George Washington, Theodore Roosevelt and many of our great leaders said so during their time, and there are even more reasons today to remember what these great men said.

So where should democracy start in the Arab world? It does not look likely that the seeds for democracy are fully planted in Iraq. Let’s see. Now here is an idea. Why not have a race amongst the Arab states for democracy? Let’s see who gets their first. Let’s see who produces the best democracy and the most developed country given its resources and abilities. Such a race has to be better than wallowing in underdevelopment, and constantly being dragged down with the same depressive refrains about the situation of the Arab world. However, one must take care not to end up with “fast-food democracy,” a rushed version with a lot of fat and not much political nutrition.

The road to democracy could take decades. Maybe it should take decades, because so much needs to be built in a country’s knowledge base as well as its political and social infrastructure and capital. Democracy can be a messy system. It does not lead to necessarily perfect results, but it surely beats having a dictator, almost no freedoms, almost no rule of law, and an aristocracy of the timeworn and uncreative.

It also sure beats having to watch the debate about where your country is going on the streets as the car bombs go off.