I opened up my copy of The Times with some enthusiasm, I am rarely awake in time to pick up a copy at the local coop here in Rowhedge when back from university (could it be that the village is so awash with intelligent, measured inhabitants that there is an early morning scrum for the enlightened paper?) so it is an infrequent treat - save when my mother is kind enough to pick up a copy on the way back from her work.
However in today's Times, poor old Simon Jenkins has picked up the topic of Iraqi democracy and in keeping with his anti-war stance propagates further one of the most insulting and idiotic myths held up by the anti-war camp. Although he structures his argument in such a way as to skirt it, he fails to disguise what is ultimately a metaphorical elephant shrouded by a tea cosy.
The myth in question is the assertion that Iraq is not capable of democracy.
There is no more bigoted or cynical idea floated by the anti-war camp than the belief that any one group of people are incapable of engaging in what most consider the most elegant system of order constructed by man.
Certainly Jenkins does a marvelous job couching his argument in the divisions in Iraqi society. He correctly identifies the centuries old friction between Sunni and Shia communities and latches on admirably to the importance of a decent degree of Kurdish autonomy, however he makes one critical false presumption:
"Just one prerequisite of democracy is that all groups share sufficient national cohesion for a minority to acquiesce in majority rule. Only a fool would say that of today's Iraq"
There it is, amongst reams of historical anecdotes (I suspect Mr Jenkins would be quite capable of ordering a complete lunch for 6 people with a pertinant historical point for each dish) the vital evidence which Jenkins relies upon to support the notion that Iraq is incapable of democracy.
Then what Mr Jenkins? If Iraq is indeed not viable as democratic state as you assert then should the people be left to tyranny?
"My apologies, but you're not capable of living peaceably in a prosperous and free society, here's the Fascist Dictator Du Jour he'll be running your administration for a bit."
Indeed he ignores entirely the evidence which so far supports the view that the religious and ethnic groups in Iraq do have sufficient belief in the establishment of one democratic nation, intelligence and grace to accept majority rule:
The hundreds who join the security forces each day eager to fulfill a desire to see peace returned to the nation they call home and who continue to do so in spite of the constant threat of death in a suicide bomber's hate-fueled conflagration.
The hundreds of newspapers springing up, each saluting in columns of arabic text the new possibilities of a united Iraq whilst continuing the hen-pecking of journalistic cynicism rightly directed at the provisional governing bodies.
To assert that the Iraqi people do not have the requisite cohesion to accept majority rule is ultimately to believe that they care so little for the future of Iraq that they would be willing to see their own nation carved asunder by selfish theocrats and powerbrokers. It is this naivety that is so prevalent in the debate surround Iraq.
Thousands of Iraqis toil each day to build back up a once proud nation. It will be their choice whether or not a democracy will be born from the ashes of tyranny, stirring rhetoric though this might be, it is clear cut fact. The prognostications of anti-war sophists who marvelously declare the war's illegality to be self-evident before moving swiftly onto this travesty of an argument debase the Iraqi people by cultivating such idiocy.
I do not lend credence to the racist and bigoted suggestion that any person is incapable of self determination, liberty or any of the freedoms we enjoy in our own nations. Just because a people are disadvantaged in their struggle to achieve such freedoms does not mean that one should ignore outright that struggle or belittle the veracity of their resolve.
Later
John
Posted by John Swaine at March 3, 2004 10:11 PM