Which situation would you prefer for Iraq?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

A: Secular regime installed. Nothing like Saddam's regime, no wars, genocidal campaigns, no torture chambers and political opponents aren't regularly executed and tortured, but the government is very harsh against religious extremists. Secularism is largely imposed on the populace. After a few years of this democratic reforms are gradually made, until the country acheives a point where it is more or less stable and democratic, and also staunchly secular in government, much like in Turkey.

B: Elections held as soon as possible. Almost no parties based on ideology, all on religious or ethnic groups. Islamists of one group win the elections in a landslide, and despite token outreach efforts to other religious and ethnic groups draft a Constitution declaring Islam the foundation of all of Iraq's laws. Elections continue, with the government essentially unbeatable due to being the majority of what the parties are based on (much like in Malaysia) leading to some undemocratic clampdowns on minority parties. Meanwhile, some largely autonomous areas start giving the death penalty for adultery, homosexuality or not wearing proper Islamic dress. The federal government allows this to continue and says it has no place to intervene.

[Alcon]

I'd like option A in the same way I'd like to live in a house made of gingerbread and lollipops.

[Cubby]

I prefer Option A all the way, it worked great for Turkey.

The elections in Palestine have made me feel disillusioned about allowing democracy in the Middle East. If they can't vote like adults then they shouldn't vote at all.

[minionofmidas]

Option A is self-contradictory, so option B.

[Jake]

Option B, as option A is really dumb. "Impose secularism" on a populace of devout Muslims?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Option A

[Gabu]

I'd like option A in the same way I'd like to live in a house made of gingerbread and lollipops.

^^^

Iraqis: "we're strongly religious"
Iraqi government: "well your government is secular lol"
Iraqis: "wtf"

4 YEARS LATER

Iraqis: "the government is secular so i guess i'll give up islam to be secular too"
Iraqi government: "k now you get elections"
Iraqis: "oh good, i vote for the secular candidates"
Iraqi government: "w00t"
Iraqis: "also i like communist strippers, i will legalize them"

[MasterJedi]

Option B, as option A is really dumb. "Impose secularism" on a populace of devout Muslims?

This and what Lewis said.

[Colin]

I'd like option A in the same way I'd like to live in a house made of gingerbread and lollipops.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Tory]

I prefer Option A all the way, it worked great for Turkey.

You get arrested in Turkey for criticising the government. What they lack in religious oppression they make up for with ethnic repression and militarism.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I prefer Option A all the way, it worked great for Turkey.

You get arrested in Turkey for criticising the government. What they lack in religious oppression they make up for with ethnic repression and militarism.

Well I'd take that over religious opression

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'd like option A in the same way I'd like to live in a house made of gingerbread and lollipops.

^^^

Iraqis: "we're strongly religious"
Iraqi government: "well your government is secular lol"
Iraqis: "wtf"

4 YEARS LATER

Iraqis: "the government is secular so i guess i'll give up islam to be secular too"
Iraqi government: "k now you get elections"
Iraqis: "oh good, i vote for the secular candidates"
Iraqi government: "w00t"
Iraqis: "also i like communist strippers, i will legalize them"

Well that's what happened in Turkey (although not so simplified). Ataturk forced secularism on the populace, and it largely worked even after the country democraticized. You know that ban on headscarves in schools in France that everyone whined about so much? Turkey has had such a law for years. But of course no one whines about that because it's a predominately Muslim country.

I prefer Option A all the way, it worked great for Turkey.

You get arrested in Turkey for criticising the government. What they lack in religious oppression they make up for with ethnic repression and militarism.

Well I'd take that over religious opression

me too. Turkey certainly has problems with media censorship and their complete denial of the Armenian genocide, but it sure beats forcing girls to die inside a burning school because they don't have their burkahs on or publicly beheading homosexuals.

[ATFFL]

Turkey had just come out from under the thumb of an oppressive religius regime.  Iraq's regime was secular. 

[Cubby]

Turkey had just come out from under the thumb of an oppressive religius regime.  Iraq's regime was secular. 

I wouldn't call the Ottoman Empire an "oppressive religious regime". Plus that was 80 years ago, when the whole World was modernizing and secularism was seen as a good thing everywhere, even in the Middle East.

I prefer Option A all the way, it worked great for Turkey.

You get arrested in Turkey for criticising the government. What they lack in religious oppression they make up for with ethnic repression and militarism.

Well I'd take that over religious opression

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well that's what happened in Turkey (although not so simplified).

No, not really

You must be logged in to read this quote.

After how many years of (let's not mince words here) fascist dictatorship?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually people *have* been complaining about it... it's one of the reasons why the Muslim Democratic party (I forget the actual name but that's basically what they are) won a landslide a few years ago. You know, when the Secular government (which included some out-and-out blackshirted fascists in it's coalition) got thumped so hard they didn't win any seats?

[Tory]

I prefer Option A all the way, it worked great for Turkey.

You get arrested in Turkey for criticising the government. What they lack in religious oppression they make up for with ethnic repression and militarism.

Well I'd take that over religious opression

You wouldn't if you were a Kurd or an Armenian

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Well that's what happened in Turkey (although not so simplified).

No, not really

Obviously nothing is that simple, but the basic premise stands that Turkey was Westernized and secularized.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

After how many years of (let's not mince words here) fascist dictatorship?

Depends on your definition of "fascist" I suppose. I'm not fan of Ataturk's nationalism, but the party most closely related to him today is Turkey's primary leftist party and the equivalent of European Social Democrats.

Plus this site: http://moreorless.au.com which is clearly ran by an EXTREMELY liberal person lists him as one of the Heroes of the 20th Century. Compare the others on the list, plus the list of "killers" (hey, much like Freedom Fighter/Horrible Person!)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually people *have* been complaining about it... it's one of the reasons why the Muslim Democratic party (I forget the actual name but that's basically what they are) won a landslide a few years ago. You know, when the Secular government (which included some out-and-out blackshirted fascists in it's coalition) got thumped so hard they didn't win any seats?

Yes, I know about those Turkish Nationalist Movement or whatever the hell they're called f'uckers and certainly want them out of parliament forever, but let's look at things in perspective. The Justice and Development Party (I think that's what they're called), did not win a landslide, while they hold a landslide in Parliament, this is due to Turkey's extremely idiotic electoral system which is proportional representation with a 10% threshhold. This kept all but two parties out. Justice and Development won only a little more than a third of the vote. One party came within less than half a percent of the threshold, had they done so, they would've radically changed the makeup. Also I believe the other parties in that coalition were mostly socialist/left, but the second party and main opposition is the Ataturk-linked staunchly secular Social Democrats mentioned above. I don't have complete results off hand, but it is possible voters simply moved from that ruling left party to them.

The main point still stands though, for all its flaws, Turkey is still a hell of a lot better off than decidedly non-secular countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia and even non-democratic secular ones like Egypt certainly are as well.

[ag]

Option A would not have been that bad if it were possible to secure that it would lead to modern Turkey. It took Turkey 70 years to develop into something acceptable - there is no guarantee that if you came back to 1918 and restarted it would have been the same.  

Remember also that Ataturk was homegrown and earned his legitimacy by, first, salvaging national sovereignety on the battlefield: defeating Greek invasion in Asia Minor, expelling the Greeks, forcing the Great Powers to backtrack on the innitially agreed harsh near-dismemberment of the country.  Add to this also that Turkey, as it was left after the wars, had a clear religious and ethnic majority (nearly everyone was Sunni, and most people were Turkish), so the idea that "we are all Turks" was acceptable to most (not to Kurds, of course).  I am not sure that "we are all Iraqi" could be a similarly acceptable ideology in Iraq.

So, to make the parallel complete, the secular dictator would have to start by fighting the Kurds (expelling them from a bulk of their territory, letting the rest secede) and sternly requesting the departure of all the foreign troops. There is no way he can be "chosen" by foreigners - if he is ever perceived as such, he'd be dead before long. He would have to be credibly independent (verging on anti-American in the first decades). The regime would have to survive, largely unsupported from the outside, for a few decades (which would imply fairly savage harshness, not only to religious and ethnic, but also to ideological opponents).

The only way something like this  could happen is if some midrange Ba'athist officer takes control of the insurgency and manages to create a force capable of a) making the U.S. position on the ground untenable and b) taking over from any U.S.-installed government and subduing the religous and ethnic militias. Once in control of a sufficient chunk of the country he could negotiate (from the position of strength) a U.S. withdrawal (which would have to be sufficiently publically humiliating for the U.S. to make his independence credible).  He then would have to win in a rather bloody civil war with pretty much everyone. After this, if the Turkish parallel is to hold, you can expect a few decades of an unpleasant personal dictatorship (you should just hope he doesn't develop into a Saddam in the process - he, probably, will), followed by an uncertain transition to democracy interspersed with military coups and bloody suppressions of all sorts of rebellions, followed, may be, after many decades by something that might be called a secular democracy.

How likely would that sort of a scenario be? Not very likely, unfortunately. In fact, the U.S., probably, made even the first stage extremely unlikely by disbanding and dispersing the old Ba'athist army from which the new Father of All Iraqis could have emerged. Even if that were to happen, the chances of success are nearly negligible.

To sum up: the key in either scenario is governmental legitimacy. If you take away both the religious, ethnic and democratic sources of legitimacy, the only legitimacy possible seems to be military. And the only source of that is battlefield success against an outside enemy. The only candidates for the role of the defeated enemy I can see are the U.S. troups - and I doubt many of us would want to see them perform it.

[ag]

The Justice and Development Party (I think that's what they're called), did not win a landslide, while they hold a landslide in Parliament, this is due to Turkey's extremely idiotic electoral system which is proportional representation with a 10% threshhold.

You forget the reason for setting up this "ridiculous" system. This is the only way they can keep essentially Kurdish parties out of parliament. As it is, in "Kurdish" provinces some 70% of the vote normally goes to the parties that don't pass the national 10% threshold. Thus, the provinces get represented by local members of larger Turkish parties who get nearly no votes from their supposed constituencies.

Given the more fragmented ethnic/religious composition of Iraq, to avoid a strong representation of sectarian/ethnic parties one might have to set a national 25% threshold in any "eventually democratic" Iraqi state. Of course, that could, quite conceivably, result in a single-party parliament. Would that still be a democracy?