Mohammed Mohsen Ali al-Zubaidi, an Iraqi exile who declared himself mayor of Baghdad, was arrested by US forces for trying to exercise control over municipal workers. I mention this because it seems the United States is doing a good job of preventing outsiders from influencing the potential Iraqi democracy. Warnings have also been sent to Iran to prevent them from organizing the Shiite majority in Iran's favor. It seems the United States is so confident about their plan for democracy in Iraq they're afraid allowing others to interfere will ruin a good thing.
While I agree that keeping Iran from making an Iraqi state is a good idea, I think we should heed our own advice. The United States is convinced Iran does not know what is best for Iraq, but perhaps we don't either.
When over 100 Iraqi opposition groups met in Madrid this past Sunday, they didn't thank the United States for the liberation of Iraq, they simply pledged to work toward an inclusive democracy. In fact, the lack of appreciation was intentionally left out because they are trying to hold all groups together, and many of them don't like the United States very much.
To create a state from chaos, the people have two options. The first option is unification. Organizing a just, pluralistic society from this vacuum won't work unless the fractured groups are willing to overlook each other's faults. A threshold of trust has to be maintained between rival factions long enough for people to develop trust in the government. That trust has not been established, nor has anyone familiar with the region expected it.
The second option, which is used when that trust cannot be maintained, is force. Rival groups battle over control for the government, and eventually one of them comes to power. It immediately begins to suppress other groups to keep competition for power to a minimum.
The United State's attitude toward building a democracy in Iraq is inherently problematic because it works under the guise of the first option, but it breeds the second. Groups are invited to attend forums and meetings. If groups choose not to attend out of protest, they are left behind when policy is made. Those groups aren't like voters in America. Voters in the United States usually do not vote because they are not worried enough about the country to spend time to voice their opinion. Iraqi groups protesting United States involvement in creating a government have a strong interest in the country, but they don't think United States involvement in the process will help the situation.
At this point, the situation becomes very complicated. Groups that never wanted the United States there in the first place will antagonize U.S.-led governments. The government that has been touted as a model democracy (option one) will resort to force so that it can maintain order. The end result is a democracy that looks much like the old regime unless two near-impossible efforts are made.
First, the new democracy will have to tolerate dissident groups that may rely on violence to get their point across until these groups find it is in their interest to participate in the democracy. This never happens, but let us assume it does. Then, when these rival groups begin to participate and win seats in the government, the groups that previously held those positions have to step down in good faith. In every emerging democracy, the test of strength comes not in the first election, but when the party in power changes after a few election cycles.
To avoid this, the United States could limit its own involvement in the process. These Iraqi opposition groups are much more willing to listen to fellow Arab states and United Nations council than the United States. Constantly trying to bring these groups into the growing government will be difficult, but it saves the United States from having to answer for irresponsible or oppressive governments a few years from now.
-- Akbar Siddiqui is a political science and economics junior. His column appears on alternate Tuesdays. He can be reached at dailyopinion@ou.edu.
hello there & you too