CNN is reporting that American officials are rethinking whether democracy can work in Iraq. What is more interesting if the failure to try a true Madisonian approach in that country. As in Afghanistan, officials yielded to traditional notions of government rather than advocate the system that has lead to the most successful and stable democracy in history. The problem in Iraq is that we attempted to create the appearance of a democratic system without the necessary static elements.
<a href=”“>For the CNN story, see this link.
What do you mean by the “necessary static elements”? Do you mean a fairly transparent financial system, an established rule of law,some measure of upward mobility, and the other things that help democracies function? There’s no doubt that just saying, “OK, you’ve got a Parliament” doesn’t solve all the problems.
ctucker.wordpress.com
Precisely, my point. It is astonishing how simplistic our government acts in “spreading democracy.” Iraq never had a functioning or credible constitution because the Administration was more interested in creating the appearance rather than the reality of progress on an Iraqi constitutional system. I am not denying that this was a difficult task. However, the Iraqi deomcracy has long been a fluid and casual concept. If we are going to be the great exporters of democracy, we will need better quality control.