From a NYTimes article today:
"Elections that were supposed to strengthen Iraq’s democracy, unite its ethnic and sectarian factions, and begin to improve sorely needed basic services — water, electricity, roads — have instead exposed the fault lines that still threaten the country’s stability."
Collier argues, in a nutshell: (see my post that includes a link to the reviews for more) When you half ass democracy building (just have elections) in countries that have NO other democratic/ civil society institutions it creates more violence, therefore giving democracy a bad name. (IE: Iraq.)
Also voter turnout in these environments is the equivalent of 'wearing football scarf' (great line) and doesn't mean much when all civilians are doing is casting a ballot and are not to the slightest extent engaged in their societies. (They don't know the candidates platform (also, the candidates don't have one) and vote based on ethnic or religious group or tribal and family connections.)
Civil society makes democracy real: rule of law, free press, free speech, freedom of assembly, transparent ballot counting, political parties based on ideas and ideology not ethnicity or religious orientation, security.
Elections are also a particularly horrible idea during sectarian bouts and times of ethnic tension because they simply cement these identities instead of working to erode them and create a national and political based identities. IE: Iraq (Sectarian, Sunni Shii identities created after the invasion because of the security vacuum were artificial and could have been done away with, but instead US calls for elections right in the middle of the height of their rise - and what do you get? Sunni boycott of the elections, Shii win power and Shii militias start to cleanse neighborhoods of Sunnis, further entrenching sectarianism.
In Iraq you have the worst all aforementioned worlds.
No comments:
Post a Comment