|
|
 |
|
| |
|
|  |
CYBER AGE The tide of democracy
By ND BATRA
IN spite of the impatience of the American people with the slowness of events in Iraq, they haven’t lost their optimism. They still believe what Iraq’s administrator L Paul Bremer recently told Tim Russert of the NBC Meet the Press programme, “the tide of history is flowing toward democracy… and we simply have to overpower them (Saddam’s ex-people), and we will.” That’s the dominant sentiment today.
Staying the course and finishing the job in Iraq has become crucial for the fight against Al Qaida terrorism. And the single-minded goal has trumped the diplomatic dangers posed by the revelation about pre-war intelligence hyping or fabrication, even though it is recognised that it would take several years and billions of dollars before Iraq shapes up as a functional civil society again.
In his recent press conference, President Bush, without any qualms, took personal responsibility for using the discredited intelligence about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction in his January 28 State of the Union address. Regardless of the quality of intelligence, he believes he would be vindicated for going to war because “The threat is a real threat.” Although Mr Bush’s popularity has come down to 56 per cent from 62 per cent in May, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, the American people still believe that he is on the right track on the issue of Iraq. The argument about faulty intelligence is becoming marginalised and Democrats may not be able to draw much mileage out of the controversy in their election campaign for the White House next year.
This is in sharp contrast to the fate of Prime Minister Tony Blair who is having hard time in convincing anyone in Britain that war was justified. The suicide of Defense Ministry arms inspector David Kelly who was believed to be the source for the BBC report about the discredited intelligence on weapons of mass destruction has aggravated the crisis of confidence for Mr Blair. When Mr Blair addressed the joint session of Congress, he was accorded a standing ovation, but back at home his integrity is being questioned. His achievements are being ignored.
The American people have not taken Mr Bush’s intelligence faux pas seriously enough to question his integrity, but if the American blood keeps dripping in the streets of Baghdad, it might cost him the White House next year. It is costing the United States about $4 billion a month to keep the operation going in Iraq; and in spite of mounting budget deficit and disarray in the finances of most states, Americans believe that they may not have any other choice but to keep going.
The establishment of the Governing Council that broadly reflects Iraq’s ethnic and religious makeup is a small but firm step in the reconstruction of Iraq’s civil society. Once the constitutional process begins in the next few months, Iraqis would grapple with the idea of sharing political power, which is not only essential for democracy but also for the free market to function efficiently. Mr Bremer thinks that elections could be held by midyear 2004. That’s certainly not the thinking of an imperialist.
Iraq could become a democratic laboratory for the whole Middle East once it has a constitutional structure that defines power and responsibility.
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan was off the mark when he said that democracy cannot be imposed from outside. Democracy was imposed upon Japan and Germany after World War II and it has been successful, as it has been in India where a federal-parliamentary structure was erected by the Nehru-Gandhi generation. The natural propensity of any society is toward authoritarianism, which can be checked only by a system of divided powers, checks and balances. Once the Kurds, the Shias, the Sunnis and others realise that it is only through constitutional structure that they can share and limit each other’s power, there will be the beginning of a new society. Constitution and national election would also enable the World Bank to lend re-construction loans to Iraq, as the bank’s president James Wolfensohn recently remarked.
The question is whether the USA can do it alone or does it need a broader international coalition to bring about the transformation. The Bush Administration is coming around the view that a semblance of UN umbrella might make it politically easy for countries like India to participate in the peace-keeping and reconstruction of Iraq.
There are still some elements in the Bush Administration who persist in their myopic view that since Americans have shed blood and won the war, they should alone rebuild Iraq and reap the economic benefits. It’s “the dumbest thing in the world,” according to Senator Joe Biden, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The United States won the war quickly but is finding that keeping the peace and nation building is expensive both in financial and human cost. More than ever the United States needs international support and it needs to be saved from its own excesses. Keeping long-term relations in view, India should help a friend in need. The friend in need is not only the United States but also the people of Iraq.
(ND Batra is Professor of Communications at Norwich University, Vermont)
| | |
|
|
 |
|
|
