The jubilation in the United States about the Iraqi elections and the claim that "democracy is on the march" demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of democracy.

Democracy is more the elections. If the most important characteristic of a democracy were to be the act of "electing," we could also call the now defunct Soviet Politboro a "democracy." We could call Castro's legislature a "democracy" and what passes in China and many other parts of the world where the government is "elected," democracies. However, that's what constitutes a democracy.

The democratic principles of individual rights and freedoms that have been developed over hundreds of years are the true meaning and spirit of democracy, principles that can not exist under Islam in a Muslim nation for Islam curtails personal freedom through definition and ritual.

Posted by: epg at December 23, 2005 11:04 AM

Much of the confusion stems from the fact that Islam subsumes the various forms of historicism as we know them (Marxist, liberal-democratic, capitalist, etc.) with an hitoricism of its own.

Islamic historicism ignores economics. It is simpler in its organizing model. So simple that it is binary: Moslem vs. non-Moslem, with the historicism being the unbroken historical march from Dar al-Harb to Dar al-Islam.

Looked at through the lens of history, at nearly 1,400 years of age Islam outperforms Marxism (dying and nearly dead) and capitalism (incredibly strong, but totally blind).

Will a new model intercede on the seemingly inexorable path we're travelling?

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at December 23, 2005 11:36 AM

Read Iraq the Model, makes quite interesting reading. It looks like there was huge voting fraud.

The numbers I read were simply ridiculous and here are a few examples from Maysan:

-Lawyer Abdulwahid al-Lami is from the Lami tribe, the biggest in a province that is run by tribal relations. This candidate won 5 votes, yes 5 votes!

This means this man didn’t even get the votes of his own family…it doesn’t make sense. It is as if the man paid 1 million dinar for each vote since the registration fee for candidacy is 5 million dinars. Heh.

-Sheikh Raheem al-Sa’idi was also running from Maysan and he’s a local sheikh of a big tribe that has many thousands of members in the south. This sheikh won 17 votes only!
A usual sheikh is married to at least 3 wives and has dozens of children, brothers and cousins and this one won 17 votes only!

The reason why such numbers are totally ridiculous is because for any party or candidate to register, the commission asks them to bring 500 signatures from supporters!

Posted by: Daffersd at December 23, 2005 11:38 AM

I wish our elections were that peaceful.

Posted by: Walter E. Wallis at December 23, 2005 12:19 PM

A few days ago in the Corriere della Sera Magdi Allam, an Italian journalist (born and raised in Egypt as a Muslim) wrote about the dangers of putting all the American hopes on "democracy" which, he said, had already lead to gains by the Muslim Brotherhood (and those gains would have been larger had they been allowed to contest seats everywhere) in Egypt, and the "Palestinian" version of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas. Ahmadinejad won in Iran through an election, as the Good Government -- Good Islamic Government -- candidate, the incorruptible one. And that for many Iranian Muslims distinguished him from the others, the Mullahs whom they don't like, not so much because they are fanatical Muslims, but because they are corrupt and fanatical Muslims, or possibly slightly less fanatical because more corrupt, just as Hamas is less corrupt than Abbas et al., and Akef in Egypt less corrupt but much more dangerous than thick-necked Mubarak and his stratokleptocracy.

The dreamy belief that most people will choose what we consider good rather than bad, that Muslims will somehow be less Muslim if they are busy putting up (or ripping down) posters, paying for television time, and worrying about getting voters to the polls, is -- dreamy.

Posted by: Hugh at December 23, 2005 1:17 PM

The results of "democracy - mahomet style" are good. In Persia, in Egypt, in arab-occupied Judea and Samaria. The mobots are following orders, and electing true call-it-like-you-see-it mahometans. The creatures who arise from this ooze are not the slimy abu mazen's and hosni mubarek's, whom you can dress up in a suit and tie, and put them in front of a group of western MSM journalists, who then will heap praise on these "moderates" who so desire peace, if only the west can contribute a few billion more, so they can keep those extremists at bay. No, it's a little tougher for the MSM to suck up to the holocaust denyers. Just how are they going to make people like that palatible to the west? ("Well, gosh, maybe those french rabbis really did kill all those Christian kids to bake their passover bread.") I say, the more islam can reveal its true, ugly face, the easier our job of educating others will be.

Posted by: Infidel33 at December 23, 2005 1:35 PM

The secular, individualist, liberal ideals of the west took a long time to develop, with many false starts, not to mention brutal resistance. The Muslim world is strugging against the profoundly regressive nature of Islam, but it has the west as an example. The gain from these elections, if one is realized, will be in the long term.

Consider Iran. Though its government is as stupid, misled and befogged by Sharia as as state be, its people have been exposed to Islam's true face for 26 years and they are sick of it. Under the patina of an "Islamic republic" beats the heart of a free people. Democracy will no doubt entrench the religious parties in the short term, but give the people a few Islamist administrations and they will be screaming for a good old fashioned Caudillo. This pendulum will swing back and forth many times, and in many places. The liberation from Islam will take a long, long time. It will not happen by fiat, by the ballot box, or by the will of an educated, westernized elite. Someday, in the far future, no one will believe anymore. The restrictions on criticism of the canonical texts of Islam will cease to intimidate. It will become conventional wisdom that Islam is NOT the solution.

Democratic Islamization bears the benefit of stripping the hypnotic power away from the conspiracy theories. When Islamic parties rule, and the nation is in a state of misery, fewer and fewer people will want more Islam as a solution, and will not be so pleased to blame the west for all their ills. They may be forced to chant that in front of the cameras, but they will not believe. An Islamic state cannot long endure.

An enlightened policy would be to hasten this day as much as possible, while accepting that changes at the top, whether they be imposed militarily or democratically, cannot be decisive in themselves.

Quijybo

Posted by: Quijybo at December 23, 2005 2:20 PM

It is disturbing to read about what is happening in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood and in Palestinian communities with Hamas.

Fundamentalist Islamic political groups are becoming more powerful.

Now about Iraq:
I supported the U.S.intervention to liberate Iraq from the dictator Sadaam Hussein who committed acts of genocide against the Kurds in the north, invaded Kuwait, terrorized the oilfields (torched earth campaign), and robbed average Iraqis of money by taking a huge potion of their oil revenue in the oil for food exchange program that was sponsored by the U.N.

Sadaam was a dictator who idolized Stalin and plastered his own image on every street corner in Iraq. Clearly, Iraq is better off without Sadaam. Thanks to the U.S, Great Britian, Australia, Italy, and others- Iraq is in a better place without Sadaam running the show.

But I question what will happen with the future of Iraq. I was a little skeptical after hearing the naive and simplistic view from Washington D.C. that all the U.S. needs to do to bring democracy in Iraq is simply give the Iraqis elections and a parlimentary style of governance.

Last year, I predicted that Iraqis will head to the polls in droves and probably vote in a fundamentalist Islamic government. It looks like this may occur.

There is much more to democracy than just giving people a chance to vote. More is needed to ensure that the seedlings of democracy take root in Iraq. Thousands of courageous Americans have sacrificed their lives in Iraq for the cause of freedom. What a disservice it would be to these fallen soldiers to not take the appropriate measures to ensure that democracy firmly takes root in Iraq.

In order for democracy to take root in Iraq there is a need to ensure that fundamentlist Islamic groups don't gain the opportunity to advance their Islamist agendas.

Create a constitution that is bolder and firmer which does not allow for Islam to become enshrined in the political landscape of Iraq. Give more protections to minorities and other religious grops in Iraq such as Christians and Jews.

Unless more is done to install democratic principles in Iraq, the future of Iraq will become a lot more like an Islamic state than a democratic nation.

Posted by: Johnathan at December 23, 2005 2:34 PM

"The dreamy belief that most people will choose what we consider good rather than bad .. is -- dreamy."
-- posted by Hugh

We need a great work of art --- a book or a movie, doesn't matter --- that exposes the stupdity and danger inherent in these dreams.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at December 23, 2005 2:49 PM

You're so right epg.

Democracy is more than just electing candidates. Democracy is about individual freedom. There can be no individual freedom in an Islamic state, because Islam is a totalitarian way of life.

It would be like holding elections in the Soviet Union, and saying that the Soviet Union was free.

Democracy is about the individual being free to choose how they want to live.

Posted by: Voltaire at December 23, 2005 3:35 PM

This result is not all that surprising. It is only after 200+ years that our form of Western Democracy works as well as it does. Whether or not the result that we are getting from Iraq is one we want, it is the one that the Iraqis want.

If they have chosen to become a Sharia state, then so be it. If they choose to confront us in the future perhaps by siding with a nuclear Iran, then so be it. We have shown twice, what our military can do against theirs. The decision is theirs and theirs alone. That is the true beauty of the Democratic way. Remember we don't always get the government that is the desired one, but we get the government that we ask for.

The Hobo

Posted by: Robohobo at December 23, 2005 5:37 PM

"An Islamic state cannot long endure."
-- from a posting above

Sure it can. Islamic states have endured for centuries. As for the Islamic Republic of Iran, it has been going strong for 25 years. The main complaint of the masses (as opposed to the intellectual and moral elite) is that mullahs are corrupt. Ahmadinejad was Mr. Incorruptible. He is that. He is also a fanatic and a monster.

The belief that the majority of Iranians are ready to throw off Islam is not true. Michael Ledeen may write endlessly about "the terror masters" and keep saying "faster please" but his direct knowledge of Iranians is limited to those in exile -- the same problem that Perle et al had in forming judgements and predictions based on their meetings with those highly unrepresentative "representative" Iraqis, who cannot be more than 5-10% of the population (Chalabi got 1/2 of 1% of the vote; Allawi, supported not only by those called "secularists" which does not necessarily mean they are ready to see Islam for what it is, merely that they don't like power coming from the mosques, because there are so many more Shi'a mosques and Believers than there are Sunni mosques and Believers).

It is fun to assume that Iran is on the verge of collapse, and if only, if only....then those Iranians would all be ready to jettison Islam.
Some, a few, are ready. Many more are not. They just want Islam Lite and not Full-Bodied. But they still want Islam. And as long as they have Islam, even Islam Lite can be dangerous to the health of Infidels. And that's what we are, and it is therefore Infidels who should be our exclusive concern. The "secularists" will have to find their own way, and undo Islam from within. Sorry, they have demanded already much too much of us. Self-defense is our concern, not some Infidel Man's Burden whereby we somehow undertake the complete transformation of Muslim societies and minds. We can't do it. We don't have the time, the resources, the desire, the ability. We can only stop ameliorating things, paying the jizyah of foreign aid, making accessible all the fruits -- education, medical care, technology -- if the Infidel world to be exploited by Muslims and often used against us. And in diminishing those oil revenues that keep Muslims from realizing what a complete failure Islam, and inshallah-fatalism is, in every area including economic development.

The best way to help Muslims is not to help them at all, but to hasten the understanding, by allowing the real effects, political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral, of Islam, to be seen and understood -- first by Infidels, and then by Muslims themselves. And then they have a choice: to stick with it, or not.

Theirs to make. Ours to observe.

Posted by: Hugh at December 23, 2005 6:12 PM

Hugh: " The best way to help Muslims is not to help them at all, but to hasten the understanding, by allowing the real effects, political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral, of Islam, to be seen and understood -- first by Infidels, and then by Muslims themselves. And then they have a choice: to stick with it, or not."

I am confident that if people really understood the truth about Islam then people would change their attitudes about how to deal with Islam. There is so much misinformation in the west about Islam. That is the reason that sites such as this one is of such importance. I greatly appreciate the work that you are committed to each day in reporting about the truth of Islam.

Posted by: Johnathan at December 23, 2005 6:55 PM

After the election results in Iraq and Egypt one can only say that you can have democracy only with democratically-minded people.

People in the middle East live in disfunctional societies. They are never told that the best things for a society are freedom and mutual respect and affection.

Instead they are told since birth that the enslaving, tyrannical religion of Islam is the best thing on earth.

People in Middle-Eastern societies are like the children of an abusive father. Such a child, when suddenly told to take decisions on his own, will never know how to, because his view of the world is warped by the continual abuse he has been subject to.

Posted by: rocky at December 23, 2005 8:35 PM

As usual, Hugh is spot on.

Iran is full of Muslims. They are not ready to
become some beautiful neo Persia with respect for
infidels. To think otherwise is ridiculous.

Islam must be fought against constantly.

Posted by: American at December 23, 2005 11:22 PM

Simply put, our goal should be not to democratize countries in the Dar al-Islam, but to secularize them. Secular governments in the Dar al-Islam will be more willing to engage in realpolitik, and can be more readily kept at bay, this being directly related to the degee to which Islam is pushed into the background. The Bush administration has apparently chosen to forget what happened some fifteen or twenty years ago in Algeria, when an Islamic government modelled after Iran was elected by popular vote; the results were, quite undemocratically (but thankfully), declared null and void.
Keeping the governments of Muslim states as secular (i.e. de-Islamized) as possible will not serve as a permanent or sufficient defense against the global jihad, but it will enable us to buy time and develop strategies to help protect ourselves. Secular Muslim leaders who may be somewhat less confident of heavenly rewards for attacking infidel states with nuclear weapons will be more hesitant to develop and use such weapons. With this in mind, it is extremely critical that we do everything possible to keep the government of Pakistan as secular and as marginally Islamic as possible, which is a tall order indeed but absolutely necessary, given its nuclear arsenal. It must be understood that the present leader of Iran, who is hellbent on developing nuclear weapons, will almost certainly use these weapons once they are available in order to wage jihad more effectively. He, and the fanatical mullahs, have no fear of death and are eager to enter Paradise at the highest level, this being their reward for killing millions of kafirs who have so insolently refused Islam. Those Muslims who die in the conflagration will also enter Paradise, so the prospect of the deaths of thousands, even millions of Muslims will not deter the Iranians from initiating a nuclear strike. They must be stopped from developing these weapons, and decisively. Let us understand that despite the frequent saber-rattling of the USSR and China during the Cold War, there was no lure of a Paradisical afterlife, and these governments stopped short of destroying us - and themselves. Iran's governing body entertains no such fears, and Iran is therefore the greatest threat to the world at the present time...all due to Islam.

Posted by: commonsense at December 24, 2005 1:55 AM

Common Sense: "Iran's governing body entertains no such fears, and Iran is therefore the greatest threat to the world at the present time...all due to Islam."

You are exactly right. The Bush Administration needs to start talking tougher with Iran otherwise Iran could move progressively faster to developing nuclear weapons.

Posted by: Johnathan at December 24, 2005 3:27 PM