Demosophia

Has the UN Sold Out Liberal Democracy in Iraq?

I have been extremely skeptical of allowing a non-democratic governmental body, such as the UN, to mediate or control the transition to democracy in Iraq on the thin justification that it "lends legitimacy to the process." In point of fact it does nothing of the sort, except in the extremely narrow sense that the UN representas a broader group of nations than the "coalition." But it doesn't "represent" them in anything more than a purely symbolic sense. But I was willing to go along with this current consensus view only because it seemed that the President had endorsed it. But if Michael Rubin at TNR is correct, and we allow the UN a determinative roll here, we may just have wasted our treasure and lives by entrusting the critical constitutional role to a bunch of weasels, with no more legitimacy than... a bunch of weasels.

And if that's the case, I'm gonna be really disappointed. I'll be angry enough that Bush threw this away, that I'd consider voting against him in the next election. Yeah I realize that Kerry's position is even worse, but there's something to be said for at least advocating frequent changes in the seat of power, just to send the message that foolishness won't be tolerated long term.

Rubin's thesis is that a national party-based system of voting, with proportional representation, will lead to the dominance of Islamists. The alternative is a constituency-based system of elections, that preserves the essental balance of the primary ethnic interest groups in the nation by reference to a geography-based system of representation. The US has such a constituency-based system of congressional representation, as do most federalist systems, where people run for election based on a local reputation. Such a system can be organized as "winner-take-all" (like the US), or proportionately (as was italy until recently). Proportional systems that are constituency-based tend to over-represent minorities, and often result in unstable politics, but that isn't necessarily the case. "Winner-take-all" systems tend to under-represent minorities, but they also tend to be more stable.

A system that is party-based, with no constituency-based limits, would have fewer checks on the aquisition of power, by effecting a disconnect between local political representation and national politics. Either a minority or majority with broad support could dominate anyone that happens to be focussed more on local political representation. Moreover, since legitimacy for a system is generally built from the ground up, a national-slate electoral system would tend to have legitimacy progrems from the outset..., something a new democracy hardly needs.

Think about how a coalition of eastern liberals would represent the interests of "the heartland" and you get the idea. Tip O'Niell's admonishment that "all politics is local" suggests that a system that eschews local constituency-base representation is both apolitical, and ultimately illiberal, since a national winner could only maintain power by installing anti-liberal systems of coercion and control.

The details are important, but I for one would not support expendinng American lives and treasure to establish a system in Iraq that has been brokered solely by the UN. As far as I'm concerned, the UN has zero legitimacy in such matters. And when I say zero, I mean none.

It seems to me that if this is really going to become the center of gravity in the War on Terror, and if we're really serious that we need "multi-lateral" support, then we ought to convene some sort of council composed exclusively of democratic states to broker a liberal constitutional government in Iraq. I'm afraid that I can see very little substancial use or role for the UN. As the UNSCAM "Oil for Food" controversy demonstrates, in is fatally corrupt; and it also has very little stomach for any sort of genuine conflict or challenge. The phrase "tits on a boar" comes to mind.

Posted by Demosophist at April 26, 2004 04:27 PM | TrackBack