Iraq: Theocracy or Democracy?
To begin, Iraq is composed religiously of three main groups: the Shia Muslims (62%), the Sunni Muslims (35%) and the Christians/other (3%) (Global Studies, 65). “The Shia community has been ruled by the Sunni Mulims since independence. Shias have been consistently underrepresented in successive Ba’thist governments and are the most economically deprived component of the population” (G.S. 70). The constant battling over religion and land was not only a problem with the Sunnis and Shias, it was a great problem with the Kurds in the northern mountains as well. The Kurdish territory was included in the British mandate, and the Kurds resented this, wanting to self-rule. They resorted to guerrilla warfare, which was undefeatable by the British army, and conflicts continued into the 1970’s (G.S. 69). Currently, Iraq’s government is “officially a republic, but in reality is a single-party secular state with an absolute ruler” (G.S. 65).
Because of the groups great differences in what they want, who they want in power, and religious beliefs, there has consistently been a great deal of strife in the struggle for power within Iraq. This leads me to believe that a Theocracy would not work in Iraq, come the end of the current war. A theocracy entails church and state united, and the country being ruled by a religious leader. This wouldn’t work in this case, as there are too many differing opinions about what the “right” religion is to rule the country. With so many varied religious beliefs, it’s almost a guarantee that choosing one over any of the others would lead to an uprising from the other groups who were not chosen. Also, a theocracy has the potential, in a case like this to mutate into a dictatorship. If one religion is imposed on people who don’t believe in it, then those people are forced to either believe, or to leave the country. This ultimately, is not fair to any group, as they have all staked claim, and have been living there for many years.
This leads me to believe that democracy is the way to go. Let me state, before I continue, that I am in no way trying to impose my Western beliefs on the situation at all. I do not believe that just because the U.S. is a superpower and runs under a democracy of the people that all countries should follow suit and it would be a cure-all. I do think that Iraq will turn to a democracy in the future following this war, however, they can’t just jump from being a republic to a democracy overnight. I think there are steps that must be taken to ensure the success of a democracy in this country. First of all, people in the country need to be educated about what a democracy is and how it functions and how it would be helpful and fair to all groups living within the confines of Iraq. People need to understand the types of government and how each will fit into their communities and lifestyles. Secondly, in addition to being educated, people need to be taught the political process involved in a democracy versus a republic. They need to understand how every citizen of the country has an equal vote and that the country is essentially run by the people, for the people. Finally, an institution needs to be built. There must be a foundation for the democracy before there can actually be a democracy. The people of Iraq must create a “constitution” of sorts, or at least a list of laws and a basis for the newly implied governmental system. Without basic law, chaos will emerge. The country must have a developed court system, legislature, etc. in order to run smoothly and get off the ground.
The ultimate goal, in my opinion, for Iraq is to have Regional Autonomy much like that of Great Britain. In such a system, the groups would be under the same major governing force, but at the same time have their own independent leaders within their own community. This is much like the U.S. in that we have a major federal government that presides over the entire country, but at the same time each state is allowed to make their own rules within the limits of the federal regulations. This would be optimal for Iraq, as it would quell the fighting and the disagreement within the dueling communities and religions. In Great Britain, there is a governing rule over the entire area, and then Scotland, Wales, and Britain each have their own parliaments within their own countries. In the past history, everything was run from London and it was a more centralized government, now, it is based more on the individual countries and their needs, but still under a centralized governing rule.
Many people raise the issue that democracy will not work in a country like Iraq. They say that it will fail because they have no models to turn to. Another idea, similar to that of Huntington, is that people of the Middle East are not programmed to think in terms of a democracy and that it’s more of a Western phenomenon. This is true that democracy IS more of a Western phenomenon, however I do think that anyone can imply such standards on their way of living if they so desire. Of course, this brings up the point discussed by Huntington in his idea of the West versus the Non-West in that because this is a Western idea, the Iraqis won’t take well to the idea. It could interfere with their idea of creating a “true Islam,” others may argue. Yet, on the other hand, other people believe that they simply haven’t had a chance to try democracy to figure out if it would work for them or not. This last group of people would be whom I agree with most strongly. While the others raise very valid points, I think that a democracy could indeed work in Iraq, and that with the right kind of planning and the steps taken to activate it, people may take kindly to it and agree with much of what democracy has to offer.
