By Sophie Stern, International Affairs Staff Writer
The Democratization of Iraq
In March of 2003, the United States of America invaded Iraq because there were Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) that needed to be confiscated. When no WMDs were found, the Government’s motivations for the invasion of Iraq changed from a campaign against terror to the current stabilization efforts. The United States government claims that we are trying to save an oppressed group of people by spreading democracy—because democracy is the only answer. But what if democracy is not the immediate answer for Iraq?
Bruce E. Moon in the Department of International Relations at Lehigh University conducted a study on the likelihood that Iraq could sustain a democracy. He presented some extremely interesting statistics in his report:
Since the end of the 19 th century, only 30 nations have experienced an autocracy as extreme as Iraq over as long a time. Only nine of those 30 have produced coherent democracies subsequently. Only two of those nine are now established democracies; the remainder democratic experiments are still in progress. The average time required for these nine prospects to transit the path from extreme autocracy to coherent, albeit precarious democracy, has been about 50 years and only two have managed it in less than 25. Iraq lacks the structural conditions that theory and evidence indicate have been necessary for successful democratic transitions in the past. [1]
Democratization might occur, but nowhere in the near future. It is highly doubtful that the United States and its people will make the commitment to help Iraq for the next 50 years. It is also important to acknowledge the fallacy in the statement: “Middle East democracy is the cure for Islamist terrorism”. [2] History shows that “modern militant Islam developed with the founding of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in the 1920s, during the most democratic period in that country’s history. Radical political Islam gains followers not only among repressed Saudis but also among some Muslims in Western democracies, especially in Europe”. [3] While democracy may not equate to security in the region, stability needs to be created in Iraq in some form.
The United States in Iraq
The American government has it backwards; security and a stable economy should come first in Iraq and whatever legitimate political system follows will have to suffice. Hernando de Soto, a Peruvian economist, theorizes that giving people property rights and assets for collateral will create a stable and evenly distributed economy. [4] Take this a step further and this principle could lead to the formation of a democracy because people would become invested in their system and would want the freedom to control it. The Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds cannot agree on who should be in power. The unwillingness to compromise and work together politically can be remedied economically. A stable economy will not solve intercultural conflict, however if the economy were to be prioritized, it would be in the best interests of these groups to work together.
Washington needs to rethink its formula for economic reform in Iraq. “This country does not need at all the kind of sweeping privatization that these guys back in Washington are looking for. Either it’s ideological, or they have an interest—they want to sell away Iraqi properties before there is a legitimate Iraqi authority,” says Ghassan Salame, the UN’s Senior Political Advisor in Iraq. [5] Now is the time to be practical not ideological— Iraqis need food on their tables now. However, there are several problems that can arise when economic policies are implemented too quickly or drastically. For example, from the Stalin era to the fall of the Soviet Union in 1990, the majority of Russians suffered from political and economic oppression. Pro-democratic citizens may have been few, but their grass roots movement was strong and eventually became influential. But when democratic principles were enforced in the mid 1980s and early 1990s, they failed due to systemic corruption and lack of foresight.
Russian Economic Policies Examined In Context of Iraq
Iraq and Russia cannot be deemed parallel simply because neither is a democracy. However, both have tried or are being forced to try a democratic form of government. Iraq is currently under occupation. Democracy is being pushed upon the Iraqis by a foreign entity—the United States of America. The reason that it is interesting to speak of both the Soviet Union and Iraq in context of one another is because the policies that were implemented in Russia in the early 1990s can serve as a strong example of what needs to be avoided when creating economic policies in Iraq.
Beginning in 1985, the Soviet Union tried to instill democratic principles under a communist system and failed. Hindered by corruption and the introduction of drastic economic policies, the Russian people were made to suffer. In 1992, towards the middle of Yeltsin’s emergency term, he encouraged privatization and instituted “Shock Therapy”. This program was created in order to stimulate a market economy under a communist system. Yeltsin released prices and inflation rose to over 2,000 percent. This unstable economy led citizens to yearn for Stalin. They glorified totalitarianism because of how quickly the standard of living diminished. Imagine that, the glorification of Stalin—a man who murdered millions of people and whose policies created mass famine. Was the economic system so poorly managed, or had people just forgotten how truly cruel Stalin was?
The Iraqis’ Sentiment
Prior to 1990, Iraq was one of the most prosperous countries in the Arab world. Iraqis’ regarded education (for both men and women), healthcare, and technological innovation as their priorities. [6] More importantly, there was a strong middle class to sustain these ideals. It is important to know what Iraq was like prior to the U.S. invasion, but this knowledge is only valuable to a certain point when trying to predict the future; Iraq prior to the U.S. occupation is drastically different from the Iraq that exists today. The focus needs to be on Iraq’s youth because they are the future. But the younger generations won’t recall a prosperous Iraq; they will remember violence, loss, and ethnic tensions. Because of this, “you’ve got to give them responsibilities, even though you might be ultimately challenged. Iraqis are traumatized, Iraqis feel humiliated, rightly so. Iraqis feel, you know, orphaned—there is a huge power vacuum there”. [7]
The Solution
The Iraqi people need to feel like they are a part of the solution. A focus on the economic infrastructure would motivate the people and would allow the average person to work with the international community to create change. As much as money can create corruption and divide a newly forming state, in this situation it may be something that creates compliance. The occupation of Iraq is growing less and less popular in the United States. Public opinion directly correlates to the positive or negative outcome of foreign policies. It should be feared that with the push for Americans to pull out of Iraq, rash economic policy decisions could be implemented that could create the same environment that it did in Russia during Yeltsin’s term. In essence, it would make the people yearn for Saddam Hussein, as the Russians yearned for Stalin. If this were to occur, Iraq will not become a democracy. Although corrupt, Russia had a political infrastructure to fall back on when democratic principles failed. Iraq, on the other hand, has nothing. Iraq’s economy is currently being rebuilt with help from the United States, Iran, and various other contributors, but it has a long way to go before it is freely sustainable. From comparing these two historically dissimilar countries, it can be concluded that economic policies need to be implemented strategically, progressively—and most importantly—wisely in order to be the main drivers in the stabilization process.
[1] Moon, Bruce E., comp. Can Iraq Democratize? How Long Will It Take? Mar. 2005. Department of International Relations, Lehigh University. 2 Apr. 2007 <http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&client=safari&q=cache:Cz1bDU2oNykJ:www.lehigh.edu/~bm05/research/Iraq%26democracy_419.pdf+comparing+the+Soviet+Union+to+Iraq+democracy+and+economics>.
[2] Ottaway, Marina, and Thomas Carothers. "Think Again: Middle East Democracy." Foreign Policy (2004).
[3] Ottaway, Marina, and Thomas Carothers. "Think Again: Middle East Democracy." Foreign Policy (2004).
[4] De Soto, Hernando. "The Mystery of Capital." Finance and Development 38 (2001): 29-34. ProQuest. Gelman Library, Washington. 1 Apr. 2007. Keyword: Hernando de Soto.
[5] Packer, George. The Assassins' Gate. New York: Fararr, Straus, and Giroux, 2005. 214-215.
[6] Vorce, Anne, comp. Report for Congress: Iraq's Economy: Past, Present, Future. 3 June 2003. Congressional Research Service. 1 Apr. 2007 <http://www.export.gov/iraq/pdf/crs_iraq_economy.pdf>.
[7] Packer, George. The Assassins' Gate. New York: Fararr, Straus, and Giroux, 2005. 215.