No doubt those people (and yes, there are many of them, some of whom have been criticized on these pages) who were hoping, hoping, hoping for the elections in Iraq to be disrupted by “the resistance,” for bombs to kill as many who dared to vote as could be killed, for the process to collapse into mayhem….are gnashing their teeth. But let them retreat to their dark Ork warrens. For the rest of us, today is a day of hope.
Let’s hope that this day begins a process that culminates in the withdrawal of foreign forces. And maybe, just maybe, it will even lead to a regime that is not only better than its murderous predecessor, but better than the governments of its neighbors, as well. As with all such things, the future is uncertain. But today….today is a bright day.
From this hawk libertarian to you: Kudos for having the class to say this.
Of course, we have to accept the possiblity that the Iraqis will eventually vote themselves right back into slavery. But today is a day of hope, and should be celebrated by libertarians, regardless of their stance on US intervention.
I share your hopes for the future of Iraq and for the withdrawal of U.S. and allied forces.
I agree with the bulk of Stan’s statement. He’s right in saying that we must accept the possibility of a new and authoritarian Iraqi regime. Yet the elections are important not just because they’re the start of Iraqi self-determination. They also are, as Dr. Palmer indicates, the perfect opportunity for the beginning of a withdrawl. Of course before we can put an exit strategy into effect we must accept that the war in Iraq as visualized by the Bush Administration is an unwinnable war. It’s a great start though. It enables Iraqi’s to see that government CAN be responsible to something other than itself.
My Sentiments Exactly
Tom Palmer:Let’s hope that this day begins a process that culminates in the withdrawal of foreign forces. And maybe, just…
Amen, Tom. Despite all the prophecies of doom and gloom from so many this country, a very profound thing happened Sunday in Iraq. The idea of liberty drew an overwhelming number of Iraqis to do something too few Americans do today: vote. The attraction of liberty to them was far stronger than the threat of death or the fear of what the future has in store for their country. I’m beginng to think they have more faith in the notion of liberty than do so many in this country. P.S. It was great seeing you at Freedom School in Dallas. Thanks for your contribution. You are a true inspiration.
The pictures of the voters are beyond description. Grown men and women covered head to toe weeping with joy at the chance to finally elect their own government. Every single person with the courage to cast a ballot today in Iraq is my personal hero.
– Adam
Tom,
Not to be the only sourpuss at this party, but I assume (wrongly?) that if the percentage of the voting public in the United States rose from 55% in 2004 to 80% in 2008, you wouldn’t necessarily be singing Hosannahs about that fact.
Further, it is my understanding that the vote is to determine percentage standing in a provisional assembly to set up a Constitution. As many of the candidates on the ballot tried to hide themselves from the public (understandably), let alone not enunciate the principles and standards on which the Constitution should be created and put forth, what exactly can outside observers see this vote as signifying? I’m not an expert in this area, so these are sincerely voiced questions, but I know you’re far too smart, and too well read, to praise voting per se.
Ross
Ross,
Correct. I wouldn’t. But a few things are worth considering.
First, I used to believe that not voting was somehow a libertarian act. I no longer do. I think that people who value liberty really ought to vote and to encourage others to vote in accordance with libertarian principles. Disengagement from the state is more likely to encourage an aggressive and predatory state than to encourage liberty. Others will surely have reasons (some of them no doubt very good) for disagreeing, but one should be recognized as a fallacy: that is to confuse liberty as a condition in which people can be free to ignore the state with the actions that are likely to promote that condition. I would like to live in a state where it wouldn’t really matter much just what policies the state undertook, because it would be so limited in its power, but it doesn’t follow that acting as if the state’s policies don’t matter much will make it the case that they don’t matter much. People who support freedom, peace, and justice should become involved in political processes to promote freedom, peace, and justice.
Second, I addressed some additonal concerns in this posting (in the post script to the main posting: http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/017093.php#comments ). In the Iraqi context, I believe that a good voter turn out represents a rejection of the terrorist/insurgents and may help to create a government with the resources to defeat them. If successful elections lead to more civil peace and security, then they’re a good thing. (In this case I take the view that we should not reject improvements because they are not perfection; the ideal should not be the enemy of the better.)
Finally, I am inspired by the courage of people who, although threatened by cruel monsters who pledged to wash the streets of Iraq with the blood of voters, still went out and voted. Adam Allouba put it quite eloquently and I share his view. When I saw the interviews on CNN, Fox News, and the BBC today of often very humble people who said that they could not be intimidated by threats of beheading because they refused to live under such threats, I was moved to tears.
What is this signifying? One step among many on the road to political legitimacy.
To answer Ross’ query, the difference we debate is between psycho-social legitimacy – “This authority is worth respecting” – establishing political sovereignty on the one hand, and moral legitimacy – “This authority is worth respecting because it is just and enhances our autonomy” – on the other. Anarcho-capitalists (and anarchists in general) question all psycho-social legitimacy, postulating the ideal of no state, advocating instead self-government at the lowest level, that of the individual.
For Arab peoples, where legitimacy comes from God through his representative (the most powerful secular authority), devolving a legitimate power to a lower level, where rule of law is egalitarian and the corrupt are brought to heel – is a revolutionary step indeed! Let then begin it
It would be a huge step for anarcho-capitialists to absorb and modernize Spencer’s typology of civilizations and thus stop expecting too much social advancement from peoples still working on the nationalism – nontryrannizing institutions between God and the individual – which all libertarians love and hate.
Clearly, a country with the level of Iraq’s level of terrorism is still coping with inventing mediating sources of civil legitimacy between clerics and the umma that we take for granted because of the West’s long alternative esperience. We should not expect Whig radicalism from peoples lacking our long, and considerably safer experience since Winthrop’s City On a Hill idealism was penned.
Sorry, Ross. I didn’t answer the second part of your query.
My understanding is that there was more public awareness of the significance of which way they voted than outsiders expected. Second, there’s plenty of such ignorance in the U.S., and yet the system of elections is better than having periodic military coups. Third, voting for people who will negotiate a constitution is a good thing; Madison got it right that representative government is usually better than direct democracy, and the interaction among factions to produce a constitution is more likely to produce a constitutional order more conducive to liberty than would a plebescite or some similiar form of direct democracy. Finally, I do hope that the Grand Ayatollah Sistani survives for some time, as he is known as an enemy of Khomeini-style (or Iranian style) Islamic-Republicanism and favors secular government that devotes itself to justice, while religion devotes itelf to morality (roughly put). He is depicted by the ignoramuses at, say, antiwar.com, as simply an Iranian-style theocrat, but he has been for many years a critic of the Khomeini approach. As I recall reading, he has said that while Khomeini favored seizing the state to make men religious and upright, his view (Sistani’s) is that the role of religion is not to seize the state and make it good, but to help to make men moral, and when they are moral and good, they will have a just government. (His web site can be found at http://www.sistani.org/html/eng/ ; see also http://www.usip.org/newsmedia/releases/2003/1223_NBiraq.html and other sources.)
I’m (re?) watching Reuel Marc Gerecht on Book-TV, his aei presentation on “The Islamic Paradox.”
He said we should stop expecting a Muslim Thomas Jefferson before they have thre Martin Luther – a religoius reform that makes the language of universal natural rights discourse possible.
I think the conflict between anarcho-capitalists and other libertarians hinges on whether or not this historic difference is accepted or denied.
Iraq isn’t the only place in the world where people vote for party lists.
While we will see more of the results later, the likely top vote getters will be Sistanis list, the Kurd list, and Allawi’s list.
While it may be that few voters know who all the back benchers will be, I think they do know who is behind those lists.
I don’t believe that most Iraqis voted for freedom or liberty–or even majority rule. It looks like the biggest vote getters are those that reflect communal interests. Most Shia are glad to vote for Shia dominance of the entire Iraqi state. Most Kurds are willing to vote for Kurdish autonomy (or independence.)
Given that those two groups (making up about 80% of Iraq) have been dominated by the Sunni Arabs for centuries, their glee at voting is not surprising.
As for Sistani, he is no liberal. He doesn’t believe that he should be given a formal position in the Iraqi state where he must vet all legislation and candidates (as in Iran.) Rather, he expects that faithful voters will vote for faithful politicians who will follow his rulings when legislating. Just like faithful people do regarding actions in their private lives. In particular, there is plenty of evidence that he will rule that politicians should vote to impose Islamic law on Iraq. But the Shia version will be imposed on the Shia, the Sunni version on the Sunnis, and Christian cannon law on Christians–the Islamic way.
I had hoped that the Iranians would use their influence to get the new government to kick out U.S. troops soon–six months to a year. I am less sure now, though it may be that Shia worry that they will not be permitted to take power if they are open about their plans.
I predict they will attempt to follow the interim constitutional approach. But if they cannot get their choice of Prime Minister, I think they will just go with majority vote and reject the legitimacy of the interim consitution. I certainly don’t believe that the Shia will really give the Kurds or Sunnis the veto over the new constitution. If a majority votes for it, they will implement it. But they probably won’t say that until the Kurds or Sunnis reject it.
I still don’t understand why there is this notion that training up the current Iraqi army is the key criterion for U.S. withdrawal. Given the mass unemployment and the Shia’s population advantage, a 2 or 3 million man poorly trained army in a few months would seem like the best way to avoid having the rebels defeat the new government. And, as that rabble becomes battle hardened, they will be able to take over the Sunni areas. I am less sure about the Kurdish areas.
With 60% of the population justly afraid of returning to the past situation of Sunni rule, and its most recent version of Baathist tyrrany or the possibility of Wahhibi or Salafi persecution, will form a powerful basis of support for the new state. That they may be persuaded that they are doing God’s work and that if they die they will go to heaven will help.
The Sistani who mirrored Khamenei in his comments about Israel (“the usurpers”) and what her eventual fate should be back when Yassin was taken out? Of course we would not be talking about him without the invasion. Without the invasion those two old enemies, Iraq and Iran, would still be facing off, giving Israel some breathing room from its worse enemy, Iran. All this courtesy of Bush and the allegedly Israel friendly neocons. So yes, good for the Iraqis. For today. As for the future…its rather certain.
Lots of good points above. It’s true now, as it always has been, that the future’s uncertain. But it looks a little bit brighter after the elections than it did before. I should clarify that my remarks about Sistani’s attitude toward the idea of an Islamic Republic were not meant to indicate that he is a classical liberal; far from it. (And whether the outcome will be good or bad for Israel is primarily a problem for Israelis. From their perspective, they might be pleased that at least they don’t have Saddam’s regime subsidizing suicide bombers. It seems highly unlikely that the outcome will make matters worse for them, but ultimately it is for them to figure out how to make peace with their neighbors, one way or another.)
Interesting article from Harry Browne: http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/IraqElections.htm
(I wrote the post below Bill��?���´s.)
Hold on. If I am affected adversely by a government decision it is MY problem? Or does this only apply, in libertarian circles, to those who are not citizens of the country to which the particular government in question is the master?
Moving on. Does the removal of Saddam increase or decrease IranÃ?Â??Ã?Â?Ã?´s influence in the region? If yes, and Iran is Israel’s biggest enemy, how is it not worse for them? Not to forget its nominal allies in the region. Has an unpopular war increased or decreased the anger within those countries, and what effect would this have on their respective regimes and their relationship with Israel?
Yes, no money from Saddam. However, judging by SistaniÃ?Â??Ã?Â?Ã?´s remarks on the “usurpers” who is to say a new checkbook is not being written up?
As for Israel having to figure out how to make peace with their neighbors…well, we could go on forever about this and go off topic so I’ll save it for another day.