Moving closer to election day

Ralph Peters presents an optimistic view of progress towards the Sunday elections in Iraq.  Here are a couple of passages from his New York Post editorial column entitled Breakthroughs.

Under pressure, men and women reveal their true character. On the run and frantic, Zarqawi offered a perfect contrast to President Bush's inauguration speech supporting global freedom: Zarqawi announced that democracy is "an evil principle."

Then this:

Lecturing the enthusiastic voters of Iraq that democracy is evil, then calling the revered Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani "Satan" for supporting the elections.

This is not sound politics. A Sunni Muslim, Zarqawi can only mobilize the Shi'a voters he fears by attacking their spiritual leader.

But then Zarqawi has made one blunder after another in the face of wide spread support for Sunday's election. Indeed, while he and the other terrorists have played checkers, the Shi'a majority has been playing chess.

For example, key Shi'a religious leaders wisely agreed that Iraq's first free elections should not replicate Iran's mistake of putting mullahs atop the government. That keeps the mullahs off the blame-line, should governmental efforts falter, while still allowing religious leaders a voice behind the scenes (an authority that men of God enjoy from Indiana to India). It calms Western fears of a "second Iran" emerging in Iraq and so reduces the chance of a confrontation between the Coalition and the mullahs.

This isn't deviousness. It's statesmanship. We may live to be disappointed in them, but Iraq's Shi'as are confounding all the Western elitists who insist that the yokels aren't ready for democracy.

Comments

[Scott]

Democracy is evil...so if the Iraqis vote in representatives who envision a theocratic, pious, yet democratic Iraq, Zarqawi will consider the results of such an election "evil". Perhaps some of the forces opposing us there simply don't understand what democracy is.

[Tom Bowler]

I think of it in terms of the degree to which "the people" are to be trusted. Libertarians are most trustful of the people. Some would say unrealistically so, and they may have a case. Totalitarians are most distrustful of the people. Mostly we fall somewhere between the extremes of fully trusting and fully distrusting. An issue I've always considered something of a barometer is gun control. A persons position indicates his or her willingness to trust the people verses willingness to trust government. It's easy to trust government when you think you're in charge.

[Scott]

I don't think the Iraqis truly understand that theocracy and democracy are not incompatible. As long as those in the theocracy stand for election every few years, the people can hold them accountable.