What Happens if Iraq Decides to Vote in an Islamic Theocracy

[Gil Hamilton]

Here is a question that I've been mulling over, and I think we might get some discussion going on the matter.

That is this. The war in Iraq is largely over, as it is expected that President Bush will declare the military phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom over when the USS Abraham Lincoln arrives at Pearl Harbor, though firefights are expected to continue. Now that Saddam's regime is gone, there is a power vacuum in Iraq. I've been watching the news and they've been mentioning the large amount of people in Iraq that are saying "OK, Saddam is gone. America, go home, and let us run our own country." On top of that, Shi'ite clerics have already gone ahead and decided to try and make Iraq an Islamic Theocracy like Iran. Likewise, I've heard reports that there are a bunch of Sunni muslim clerics that want America gone for their own government.

Then there is the Coalition governments, who go on about making Iraq a democracy. In fact, Rumsfield has said that the United States will not allow an Islamic Theocracy to come to pass in Iraq. But this presents an interesting corundrum. Iraq never has had a tradiation of democracy. What happens when democracy comes for Iraq, the people of Iraq decide they want an Islamic state like Iran? If they have a democracy and the majority of citizens want to vote in a Islamofascist (as some members of this message board have dubbed it), but the coalition nixes it and tells them to elect as less popular option but one that is pro-American and not an Islamofascist, then there is a contradiction. The Coalition cannot say "We don't care what the will of the people is, now choose option A, B, or C and be a free Iraqi democracy dammit!" without being hypocrites, since that action would not be a free democracy, since the Iraqi people voted against option A, B, or C, but rather want option D.

In summary, in the event that the citizenry of Iraq decide that they want a islamic theocratic state and vote for it via fair elections, how can the Coalition prevent it from happening without going against the democracy they want to exist?





DISCLAIMER: Note that this is a hypothetical situation. Make the assumption, for the purposes to discussion, that the Iraqi people decide they want a Islamic theocracy. Note also that I'd rather they form a real democracy myself, so don't go screaming at me that I'm some sort of hardcore leftist who wants them to live in an dictatorship, for some reason.

[Enforcer Talen]

you hardcore leftist who wants them to live in a dictatorship!!!!11!11!11!!!!

heh.

now then. we'd prolly set up a benevolent dictatorship, encourage civil rights and free trade (say, with us), and wait a decade until the potential voters leave represion behind.

[Gil Hamilton]

you hardcore leftist who wants them to live in a dictatorship!!!!11!11!11!!!!

heh.

*hurls a pilum through your chest*

now then. we'd prolly set up a benevolent dictatorship, encourage civil rights and free trade (say, with us), and wait a decade until the potential voters leave represion behind.

But the problem is that it contradicts the position that we are currently taking, take is we want a free Iraqi democracy. Simply sitting on Iraq until they decide to stick with a democracy would make the Coalition hypocrites. "We want you to have a free democracy under your own rule, but you don't get to vote until we are sure that any vote you will make is in our favor."

[Enforcer Talen]

we want a free iraqi democracy, but not one that will cost us 100 billion dollars every decade. of *course* we wont votes in our favor - iraq wars are freaking expensive.

[weemadando]

The Americans will say:

"The election was clearly fixed by elements within Iraq."

The world will say:

"Pot, kettle, black."

Israel will say:

"Fuck."

The Middle East will say:

"Well shit."

The world will say:

"*sigh*"

[The_Nice_Guy]

Germany and Japan were never so complicated...

The Wobbly Guy

[NecronLord]

Shouldn't that be when?

Other than the "Grand Council For Islamic Revoloution in Iraq" there aren't any popular candidates.

[salm]

a constitution in which parties which are extreme as that are illegal could be established, just like in lots of other countries which are democratic.

[Next of Kin]

"We want you to have a free democracy under your own rule, but you don't get to vote until we are sure that any vote you will make is in our favor."

Solution --> Invade Syria and set up a puppet regime and arm them to the teeth in order to be the new buffer between Islamic fundyism and Israel.

[NecronLord]

a constitution in which parties which are extreme as that are illegal could be established, just like in lots of other countries which are democratic.

Won't help. They'll set up a 'moderate' political wing, who would change the constitution to allow them to pass Sharia law.

[salm]

a constitution in which parties which are extreme as that are illegal could be established, just like in lots of other countries which are democratic.

Won't help. They'll set up a 'moderate' political wing, who would change the constitution to allow them to pass Sharia law.

these basics of the constitution would have to be unchangable or better, very, very hard to change. maybe with a 2/3 majority or something like that. of course it wont keep them from turning irak into a theocracy to 100%, but it´s one more obstacle they´d have to take.

[NecronLord]

a constitution in which parties which are extreme as that are illegal could be established, just like in lots of other countries which are democratic.

Won't help. They'll set up a 'moderate' political wing, who would change the constitution to allow them to pass Sharia law.

these basics of the constitution would have to be unchangable

That would never be accepted. If that were to be imposed, then they'd simply declare a new nation within the borders of old iraq and seceed by treaty all of the Republic of Iraq's territory to the Islamic state of Iraq.

or better, very, very hard to change. maybe with a 2/3 majority

That's the norm. that's also well below what the Islamic parties would get in an election.

or something like that. of course it wont keep them from turning irak into a theocracy to 100%, but it´s one more obstacle they´d have to take.

Wouldn't hold them off for long.

[Yogi]

Putting a "Seperation of Church and State" clause in their constiution might help a bit.

[NecronLord]

It would cause too much trouble to be worth it. Islam has a long tradition of politcs and religion being interlinked, right back to their founder Mohammed. It would be seen as a direct insult to Isalm. (Admittedly almost everything is seen that way)

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

If Iraq goes fundie Islam:

Bush will lose 04 election.

[Joe]

If Iraq goes fundie Islam:

Bush will lose 04 election.

Hmm, we'll likely be there for the next few years, so I don't think Iraq will be going fundie within the time of the current Bush administration.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

Putting a "Seperation of Church and State" clause in their constiution might help a bit.

If Islamic fundies want to estabish a theocracy in Iraq, then they will probably ignore such a clause.

To precent a theocracy, I say the situation be regulated, to make sure no Islamic loonies get on the ballot, and if one does, it will be assured they would lose.

[Axis Kast]

They won't. If they did, we'd probably rig the election or the results ourselves.

[Joe]

And BTW, a separation of church and state clause means little in a society whose members do not hold it in high regard.

[NecronLord]

They won't.

Wrong. They love the Ayatollahs. Most of Saddam's opression was directed against them and their supporters, particularly those supported by Iran.

[Axis Kast]

Incorrect.

Most Iraqis today subscribe to the messages of fundamental Islam because they preach the popular anti-American message. That does not however mean that Iraq isn't the most fertile territory in the Middle East (outside Israel or Turkey) for secular government on the Western model. Don't forget that women still represent a substantially empowered group in modern Iraq or that Hussein's regimé was widely considred the most progressive yet in terms of (domestic) policy-making in that region. The average Iraqi is well aware of the impositions put forth by fanatical Islamofacism. While they might chose mildly theocratic government, they will never swing toward the kind of dictatorship exercised in Iran or Saudi Arabia.

[Darth Wong]

Consider how little effect the "Separation of State and Church" clause has on American fundies. The only reason they haven't already turned the nation into a full-blown theocracy (although they've made lots of small steps in that direction) is that there just aren't enough of them yet.

A clause like that in Iraq would have no effect whatsoever. If you use America as a model, the fundies can be counted on to get a sizable proportion of the religious moderates to either vote with them or be apathetic and sit on the fence. In a population with a much greater fundie demographic, outright opposition to the fundies will be weak at best.

[Darth Wong]

Incorrect.

Most Iraqis today subscribe to the messages of fundamental Islam because they preach the popular anti-American message. That does not however mean that Iraq isn't the most fertile territory in the Middle East (outside Israel or Turkey) for secular government on the Western model. Don't forget that women still represent a substantially empowered group in modern Iraq or that Hussein's regimé was widely considred the most progressive yet in terms of (domestic) policy-making in that region.

Iran was once progressive too.

The average Iraqi is well aware of the impositions put forth by fanatical Islamofacism. While they might chose mildly theocratic government, they will never swing toward the kind of dictatorship exercised in Iran or Saudi Arabia.

I'm curious where you purchased your crystal ball.

[Ralnia]

We've changed our position on Iraq soo many times that no one expects it to stay the same. According the right, it was to get Al Queda (disproved), then for WMDs (takes too long to find), then for democracy. According to the left, first it was for empire (put on hold unless he desides to invade Syria), then for oil (France wanted oil too), then to give Al Queda recruits. We've had 6 positions on Iraq already, , so we're already being called hypocrits - one more switch won't change that.

[Admiral Johnason]

You think the way they use religion that they would at least begin too think that, in their mind, that God is on the Ameriacn side and not on thier's. Though i think that God hasn't taken sides since the first Israel.