I’ve been working on how to communicate the fundamental political ideals of classical liberalism and some of the practical challenges that people face in trying to attain free societies. I’ve gone over two of my teaching tools for Iraqis with a number of people from around the world to try to present useful information to people who are currently struggling to bring about a stable constitutional order. There is a serious chance that it will be a relatively liberal one, and the more freedom the constitution can secure, the better off the great majority of people will be. The short piece on “Challenges of Democratization” is to point out that the effort may fail and that knowledge of some of the potential pitfalls will increase the likelihood of success.
Some of my more extreme (or, from their viewpoint, principled or radical) libertarian friends may balk at the use of the word “democracy,” since regimes called democracies can be quite oppressive, but I am using the term in its liberal sense, not its illiberal sense. (See Fareed Zakharia’s book on The Future of Freedom for more explanation of the difference, or just look through the writings of J.-J. Rousseau.) I believe that Iraq may achieve a constitutional democracy that would accord a much greater respect for individual liberty than the people of that country have known in the past; I’m not the type to let the best be the enemy of the much, much, much better.
The Powerpoint presentation on “Democracy and the New Iraq” will be in both [English](/papers/democracy-and-the-new-iraq.pdf) and Arabic, but on the computer on which I’m currently typing this I’ve only got the English version. The short handout on “Challenges of Democratization” I have in both [English](/papers/challenges-of-democratization-english.pdf) and [Arabic](/papers/challenges-of-democratization-arabic.pdf).
I’ll have intermittent internet connection for a while and will be very busy, to boot.
Bye for now.
Are you requesting comments & suggestions?
First, good on you for doing this — it is exactly what libertarians ought to be doing around the world.
Comments on the powerpoint:
1. You should get the rights of the individual up front, not towards the back. Begin by saying rights are inherent in the individual, and that the only just powers govt’s have are those the people give them.
2. Then point out that (proper) constitutions are about basic principles, that they should be short and simple, and that they strictly define and hence limit what government may do — any power not explicitly granted gov’t is thus denied them. Consitutions are limits for governments.
3. “No ‘power’ is above the law?” I don’t know what “power” means in this context. No *person or group of people*, whether in official or private capacity, is above (or below) the law. (What do the Arabic slides say?)
4. Good work on trying to incorporate local themes — but how do Arabs regard the pre-Arabic civilizations that were in Iraq? (I certainly don’t know, but if I were doing this I’d ask as many Iraqis as I could beforehand). Also, can’t the old town-crier in the 3 corner hat be replaced with some sort of Arab equivalent (surely they had such in the great days of the Arabic empire). Are the crosses on his clothing likely to be controversial?
I wish you success.
More armchair expertise:
The (English version) handout strikes me as odd in that it seems like part 2 of a document that discusses the benefits of “democratization.” The definition of liberal democracy & reasons why it would be desirable ought to come prior to the “challenges.”
Perhaps you have a use for these such that this is appropriate for your purposes, but as a stand alone document it seems incomplete.
As “Part 2” it’s satisfactory, IMHO.
Good luck.
Thanks, Mr. Steele. All interesting and helpful remarks.
1. In order to present a useful and (I hope) convincing account, I didn’t start with what Aristotle would have referred to as those matters that are “first in themselves” (as I recall roughly from scholasticism), but those that are first in order to convince. What is foremost in the minds of most Iraqis is not a philosophical or logical argument (start with arguments for rights, then show how government might derive its “just powers” from delegation of rights, etc.), but the experience of living under absolute power. So I started with the horrors of tyranny, raised the issue of how power might be checked by power, and then went on to how that is a part of a general system oriented toward respect for individual rights. The synthetic approach of starting from first principles and then building a case isn’t always the best; if one wants to explain the workings of the free market, for example, it’s usually best to start with the complex problem to be explained, viz. why when one goes into a super market there is all that great stuff there, rather than starting with some axioms about supply and demand. One leads to supply and demand, from the more complex to the less. (That’s the analytical approach.) Both are needed for a convincing account.)
About “no power,” I started with the idea that some kind of authority/power to use force is necessary to stop the criminal and terrorist attacks on innocents, of the sort that frighten so many ordinary Iraqis. The use of force may be necessary, but it is itself dangerous, and cannot be considered above the law.
And finally, most Iraqis (and all the ones I have met) react positively in general to images from Iraq’s past, both the glories of the Caliphate and the pre-Islamic past. About the town crier, I found that a useful bit of amusing imagery. (I did search for an Iraqi equivalent, but all I could find were explicitly religious, viz. muezzin calling for prayers, which I wanted to avoid, since this is about equal religious liberty, as well. No one has objected to the crosses; few people who are interested in democracy of the sort I’m discussing have shown that kind of extreme sensitivity.)
The second version (on “Challenges”) is a followup talk after the various benefits have been discussed.
Thanks for the comments; I will be more alert to how people react to those issues.
Internet failure and Tom Palmer in Iraq
The satellite that normally provides me with extraordinarily fast internet access has decided to not work. I will, however, throw said internets a bone and link to Tom Palmer’s entry done ex patria—that is, done while in Iraq, teaching about the me…
Tom:
If it’s worth anything, here are my 2 cents:
1) The most important thing is for Iraqis to see democracy as something native to them and not a western import. It does NOT mean promiscuity, what they see as immoral behaviour, abandonment of Islam, etc.
2) The second most important thing is for them to believe that working within the new regime is the quickest way to get the Americans out. Once the country is stable the occupation ends.
You already knew all that, but it can useful to repeat the obvious. Good luck – this is the most important work you could possibly be doing right now. Stay safe.
– Adam
The big problem that needs to be addressed with your mission in particular and democracy in general is the Collective Action Problem. Why should an individual Iraqi participate in this system when his exertions are highly unlikely to have a decisive effect on the outcome? The individual Iraqi’s vote is statistically irrelevant: why should he expend valuable time and energy ensuring that his vote is cast rationally? In order to get rational people to help build institutions than promote sanity and minimize pillage and violence, these people will need to be convinced that their efforts will have a decisive (or at least major) impact.
>>2) The second most important thing is for them to believe that working within the new regime is the quickest way to get the Americans out. Once the country is stable the occupation ends.
Well, sort of. Once the country is “stable” the occupation continues with the puppet government. Then the power struggle over who can bribe/subvert the puppet government begins.
“The people are the source of legitimate political power. Government has only the powers the people choose to delegate.”
Sounds great! So, that means I can fire the government when it wastes my tax dollars, kills people for reasons I find illegitimate, imposes burdensome regulations, etc., right?
How exactly am I supposed to go about doing this? And when exactly did I choose to delegate these powers anyway? For people to have delegated powers, and for representatives to be considered agents, there has to be some practical way for people to withdraw their consent. And voting isn’t practical.