September 12, 2007
Democracy in Iraq
by
Jordan
Ballor
Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI), the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, made headlines last month when he broke publicly with the Bush administration and argued that "the mission for us is not to establish a democracy in Iraq, but to make the region secure and stable." Such sentiments are in sharp contrast to the standard line coming from the White House since the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Since that time, key figures in the Bush administration have cast the war in terms of spreading democracy and fighting totalitarianism, equating freedom with democracy and tyranny with other forms of government. This narrative is closely aligned with the thought of noted political theorist Natan Sharansky, an anti-communist and author of the 2004 book, The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror. But while Hoekstra's comments sound a note of dissonance among GOP faithful, they stand in continuity with a long line of Christian reflection on the nature of government and politics.
John Calvin, the sixteenth-century reformer, famously held that a number of forms of political systems were theoretically acceptable, because the issues involved in finding "the best kind of government" allowed "no simple solution but requires deliberation, since the nature of the discussion depends largely upon the circumstances." While Calvin thought that a mixed form of aristocracy and democracy held the best prospects in general, he was unwilling to make universal claims about the validity of particular forms of government for all times and all places.
This reflects his recognition both that the context within which governments administer justice vary greatly and that the concentration of political power in a single figure, such as a monarch, tends to be more corruptible than those forms of government that separate, coordinate, and diffuse power.
Following in Calvin's line of thought on this point is Abraham Kuyper, the nineteenth-century Dutch theologian and himself a one-time prime minister of the Netherlands. Kuyper avers that the task of the government is to be distinguished from the question of the form of a particular state. Pointing to differences between America, Russia, and nations in Africa, Kuyper says that the administration of government might "assume a variety of forms, because there is an endless difference in the development of nations."
Even more recently in the early twentieth-century the Lutheran theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer reflected on the situation he foresaw coming to realization in post-war Germany. For Bonhoeffer the validity of any particular form of government may to a great degree be historically contextual. Thus, Western-style democracy may be invalid in certain places and times, since, as he said, "no form of the state is in itself an absolute guarantee for the proper discharge of the office of government."
Bonhoeffer's recommendation for the formation of the German state following the end of the war ran along the lines of an authoritarian government devoted to the rule of law, at least until such time as the Nazi party could be guaranteed not to achieve a revival through democratic processes. Executed a few weeks before the end of the war, Bonhoeffer never lived to see what form a post-war German government would take. But his concern about the continuing power of the Nazis was shared by the victorious Allies, and the Nazi party was and still is outlawed in Germany just as Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath party was banned following the invasion of Iraq.
What Iraq needs more than a particular structure of government is a ruling institution that establishes and upholds the rule of law, defends the nation from its enemies both from within and from without, and protects basic liberties such as the rights to possess property and to freely engage in enterprise and exchange. These are basic functions of any well-ordered government, whatever the particular form.
Because of various cultural, religious, and political factors the Iraq of today may be unsuited for the institution of a Western-style democracy. But as Christian reflection on the nature of government and freedom shows this fact need not mean that Iraq is doomed to an existence filled with tyranny and terror. Other forms of government can be suited to promoting a flourishing society characterized both by individual liberty and responsibility. Democracy and liberty are simply not identical concepts, and we should take great care not to conflate them.
A version of this commentary has previously appeared in the Orange County Register.
Comments
chrisjames: danny_daniel1232yahoo.com- It pains each time Iraqi issues are discussed.
I feel bad realising that the problem in Iraq is American creation "Bush" to be precise.
There was calm and peace in that country before Bush made up his mind to remove Sadam Husain by all means. Bush gave the world the impression that things would be better for average Iraqi the moment sadam was removed from power.
But today what have we been seeing? death without end for the people.
I remain to be faulted that Sadam Husain was responsible for peace and unity in Iraqi, and I doubt if there is going to be peace in that country without disintegration.
Frank Staheli: frankstaheli@gmail.com- I just heard your interview on The Right Balance with Greg Allen. I've always had a feeling that we were touting "democracy" when we should instead be championing "liberty". Thanks for explaining it in more detail so that I can understand better why my hunch was right.
Frank Staheli
SimpleUtahMormonPolitics.com
duane o'connor: duaneo@iserv.net- Sorry, I'm not guying it. The history of man proves that absolute power in one person or a small group of persons leads naturally and inevitably to the loss of liberty and the right of ownership of private property. Why? Because power corrupts. The only form of government that has preserved liberty and the right of ownership of private property is the American form of democracy which disperses governmental power. No country in the history of man has provided as much liberty and has protected these rights to the extent that our form of government has, at least historically. There have never been benevolent dictatorships, monarchies or oligarchies. A perfect example of that is where we are now in America. Through a combination of developments over the last 60 years or so this country has turned into an oligarchy. The oligarchs, of course are members of Congress. They are virtually guaranteed re-election. They have more and more exercised their oligarchial power and the result has been and will continue to be interference with liberty and restrictions on the right of private ownership of private property. How is this accomplished? Through more and more federal legislation, especially tax legislation, and regulation, much of which results in the re-distribution of wealth. Interestingly, it is not a Democrat versus Republican phenomenon. When the Republicans came into power in 1994 they acted the same way as the Democrats. They restricted liberty and intervered with the right of private ownership of property. They taxed and spent as bad as Democrats. The only thing that has saved the country thus far is the one good thing that they did. They cut taxes. But when the presidency goes to the Democrats and when Congress goes even more Democratic in the next election taxes on the rich and general re-distribution of wealth will accellerate. Moral of the story: power corrupts. Oligarchal power is just one form of power that corupts. This country has become an oligarchy. If the country were go back to being a democracy there would be a chance of continuing success. I personally see no reason to believe that that will happen. The bottom line is that we are no longer a Democracy. What will happen in the future as a result of that is proof that your thesis that there many forms of government that protect liberty and the right of ownership of private property is wrong.
Aaron Vaughan:- Very well said. Indeed, borders exist for a reason. Cultures have developed based upon local and regional economic and cultural conditions with in historical constaints. Maybe all that Iraq needs to do is to stick with the winners and develope its government from with in.
Ed Burley: burleywu@yahoo.com- In the scriptures we can see how God blessed his people regardless of the government under which they lived. Democracy is susceptible to the danger of "mob rule" and can, and I think has, become an idol of sorts. "The Voice of the People" is the voice of god is the rally cry of the democrat. Even republican government, with their "rule of law" can set "law" up as an idol as well.
What is needed is liberty; liberty under God. As I live according to the faith, my actions benefit others. In securing my own property, family, etc., I have strengthened society by being a self-sufficient, although always reliant on God, charitable neighbor. A stronger community, voluntary and charitable, is built, not through its form of government, but by the character of its people. Those who serve God, serve others, and provide for their own needs, are stronger citizens of a freer society.
We don't need more democracy, or even more government in any form. We need more liberty under God.
Democracy in Iraq