Muslim Democracy - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

4thTimeLucky · 05-03-2003, 01:50 PM

Just a little what if for Iraq....

The US confound critics and swiftly make arrangements for a free election.
Before the election, a party is formed that proposes to make Iraq a Muslim theocracy and it stands in the election.
The party wins the majority of the vote (over 50%).

Should Iraq be allowed to be a Muslim theocracy if it so chooses?

Can a population democratically vote to abandon democracy?

Phaenx · 05-03-2003, 02:11 PM

If we let that happen then attacking them in the first place wouldn't do much good as far as freeing an oppressed people goes. Save them from one tyrants hands to put them into another is not good policy.

4thTimeLucky · 05-03-2003, 02:28 PM

What is more tyranical: To be a Muslim theocracy when you have elected to be one, or to vote to be a theocracy and then be forced by a foreign power to follow a ruler not of your choosing?

You cannot force a country to be a democracy if it does not wish to be one. Or a least I don't think you can.

[NB to future posters: This is intended to be a primarily hypothetical situation and only tangently about Iraq. I am merely imagining a scenario in which a people democraticaly vote for a non-democratic form of government. What, if anything should be done? Iraq is just a hook to hang this debate on.]

Lebell · 05-03-2003, 03:13 PM

What prevents the United States from becoming a Christian Theocracy?

When you answer that, you'll know what will probably happen in Iraq at the United State's insistance.

4thTimeLucky · 05-03-2003, 03:46 PM

I don't know of anything that prevents the US becoming a theocracy.

In a practical sense it won't become one because a majority of the population would not choose to be run by a theocracy (though some/many would I suspect).

At a theoretical level the constitution says that elections must be held every five years. On the one hand it is possible to ammend the constitution... on the other there are some pretty strict checks and balances in place. Assuming that the people elected a set of representatives who shared their desire to become a theocracy I would have thought that they could abolish elections within the existing legal framework. Alternatively, if you have an electoral mandate then you could simply replace the existing constitution with a new one, or none at all, and deal with those who object appropriately (wasn't the "right to bare arms" created as a balance against governmental abuses?).

But I suspect that if you had an answer in mind it was 'the constitution'. But Iraq has no such constitution and one could not be democratically put in place without a refendum, and in our hypothetical scenario such a referendum would fail.

The_Dude · 05-04-2003, 07:16 AM

it'd be worse off than saddam if we let an islamic fundamentalist people get in there.

Macheath · 05-04-2003, 07:57 AM

I would not be surprised if the US interim administration uses former members of Saddam's regime to help rebuild the Iraqi Government, especially if they act in opposition to a fundamentalist theocracy. They will not, of course, be in the limelight; but the former Ba'ath party members will be reintegrated into Iraqi society in some capacity.

Whoever controls the war crimes investigations controls this reintegration process. I hope that it will be something like South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I fear that it will be something like Pinochet's general amnesty.

Liquor Dealer · 05-04-2003, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Macheath
I would not be surprised if the US interim administration uses former members of Saddam's regime to help rebuild the Iraqi Government, especially if they act in opposition to a fundamentalist theocracy. They will not, of course, be in the limelight; but the former Ba'ath party members will be reintegrated into Iraqi society in some capacity.

Whoever controls the war crimes investigations controls this reintegration process. I hope that it will be something like South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I fear that it will be something like Pinochet's general amnesty.

I noticed this morning that we are already using some Ba'ath party officials - I believe it was to head their medical/health department. Not all democrats are bad so I would have no objection to the Presidnet using a democrat occassionally in some position - the same is probably true of the Ba'ath party. If they were there in a professional capacity and were not part of the unacceptable portions of the former government I see nothing wrong with it. They are probably the professionals that were best suited to do the job in the first place.

toxic515 · 05-04-2003, 06:28 PM

the constitution prevents the US from becoming a theocracy.

Yes, a country can vote itself a non-democratic government. Hell, ALL dictators are granted their authority and power by the people. It is almost always given freely for the sake of imagined security. Only later do the people recognize the monster they've created...

Russia intentionally entered communism, Cuba has. Germany embraced the Nazi party. many many more.... and in all cases they took quite some time to recognize the reality. Even the Roman Empire got where it was with Glee... and in each case, so far, eventual collapse. (okay don't shoot me now, I mean I suppose EVENTUALLY everything will collapse, but I think my point is the same....)

4thTimeLucky · 05-05-2003, 02:27 AM

toxic

can you (or anyone here) explain how the constitution prevents it.
this isn't meant to be a challenge, i am just really curious and ignorant

Quote:

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

I would have thought that something along the following lines could occur:
- the population want a theocracy.
- they vote in representatives at house and state level that represent their view.
- they vote for a president who supports their views and he elects a supreme court that does too.
- an ammendment is table to become a theocracy and it is passed with 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of the states.
- the supreme court do not overturn the amendment (can they overtrun amendments or just laws??)
- the constitution has been amended and there need be no more elections.

crewsor · 05-05-2003, 05:25 AM

The First Amendment to The U.S. Constitution

Quote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Macheath · 05-05-2003, 06:06 AM

I think what 4thTimeLucky is getting at is it would be technically possible for the US population to simply vote to repeal the first amedment.

smooth · 05-05-2003, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 4thTimeLucky
toxic

can you (or anyone here) explain how the constitution prevents it.
this isn't meant to be a challenge, i am just really curious and ignorant

I would have thought that something along the following lines could occur:
- the population want a theocracy.
- they vote in representatives at house and state level that represent their view.
- they vote for a president who supports their views and he elects a supreme court that does too.
- an ammendment is table to become a theocracy and it is passed with 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of the states.
- the supreme court do not overturn the amendment (can they overtrun amendments or just laws??)
- the constitution has been amended and there need be no more elections.

Here are some answers to your last two points:

The Supreme Court can't overturn an amendment (which is what is needed to overturn a prior amendment).

HJRES 25: Repeal Constitution Amendment 22 (presidential term limits)

(note: have to get it through google cache, page not found otherwise)

here's the text:

Quote:

H. J. RES. 25

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 25, 2003

Mr. HOYER (for himself, Mr. HYDE, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. SABO, and Mr. PALLONE) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article --

`The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed.'.

iccky · 05-10-2003, 10:59 PM

So in theory yes, we could do away with the first amendment and amend all the articles about the president so that he'd be appointed by the southern baptists, or the pope, or whoever.

Back to the original question, theres a lot of academic research that says that thats exactly what will happen. Most Iraqis hate Israel and what America does in the region, so a democratically elected government would probablly do the same thing. Unless of course we put in a clause in their constitution that says "you have to like America." Think the Platt amendment for early 20th century Cuba.

An interesting counterpoint: In Iran, probablly the most democratic country in the region, the elected officials are more liberal then the un-elected religious dictators. Of course even in Iran the elected officials can't to squat, but maybe its a sign that a true Muslim democracy would be more liberal then we all think.

smooth · 05-10-2003, 11:15 PM

iccky,

Welcome to the board, I've read all of your post and you're well informed. Nice to see a twenty year old so knowledgeable on current events and foreign affairs.

05-03-2003, 01:50 PM	#1 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	Muslim Democracy Just a little what if for Iraq.... The US confound critics and swiftly make arrangements for a free election. Before the election, a party is formed that proposes to make Iraq a Muslim theocracy and it stands in the election. The party wins the majority of the vote (over 50%). Should Iraq be allowed to be a Muslim theocracy if it so chooses? Can a population democratically vote to abandon democracy? __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

05-03-2003, 02:11 PM	#2 (permalink)
Phaenx The Northern Ward Location: Columbus, Ohio	If we let that happen then attacking them in the first place wouldn't do much good as far as freeing an oppressed people goes. Save them from one tyrants hands to put them into another is not good policy. __________________ "I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

05-03-2003, 02:28 PM	#3 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	What is more tyranical: To be a Muslim theocracy when you have elected to be one, or to vote to be a theocracy and then be forced by a foreign power to follow a ruler not of your choosing? You cannot force a country to be a democracy if it does not wish to be one. Or a least I don't think you can. [NB to future posters: This is intended to be a primarily hypothetical situation and only tangently about Iraq. I am merely imagining a scenario in which a people democraticaly vote for a non-democratic form of government. What, if anything should be done? Iraq is just a hook to hang this debate on.] __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless! Last edited by 4thTimeLucky; 05-03-2003 at 02:31 PM..

05-03-2003, 03:13 PM	#4 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	What prevents the United States from becoming a Christian Theocracy? When you answer that, you'll know what will probably happen in Iraq at the United State's insistance. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

05-03-2003, 03:46 PM	#5 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	I don't know of anything that prevents the US becoming a theocracy. In a practical sense it won't become one because a majority of the population would not choose to be run by a theocracy (though some/many would I suspect). At a theoretical level the constitution says that elections must be held every five years. On the one hand it is possible to ammend the constitution... on the other there are some pretty strict checks and balances in place. Assuming that the people elected a set of representatives who shared their desire to become a theocracy I would have thought that they could abolish elections within the existing legal framework. Alternatively, if you have an electoral mandate then you could simply replace the existing constitution with a new one, or none at all, and deal with those who object appropriately (wasn't the "right to bare arms" created as a balance against governmental abuses?). But I suspect that if you had an answer in mind it was 'the constitution'. But Iraq has no such constitution and one could not be democratically put in place without a refendum, and in our hypothetical scenario such a referendum would fail. __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

05-04-2003, 07:16 AM	#6 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	it'd be worse off than saddam if we let an islamic fundamentalist people get in there. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

05-04-2003, 07:57 AM	#7 (permalink)
Macheath Junkie Location: Sydney, Australia	I would not be surprised if the US interim administration uses former members of Saddam's regime to help rebuild the Iraqi Government, especially if they act in opposition to a fundamentalist theocracy. They will not, of course, be in the limelight; but the former Ba'ath party members will be reintegrated into Iraqi society in some capacity. Whoever controls the war crimes investigations controls this reintegration process. I hope that it will be something like South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I fear that it will be something like Pinochet's general amnesty.

05-04-2003, 06:28 PM	#9 (permalink)
toxic515 Addict Location: Texas	the constitution prevents the US from becoming a theocracy. Yes, a country can vote itself a non-democratic government. Hell, ALL dictators are granted their authority and power by the people. It is almost always given freely for the sake of imagined security. Only later do the people recognize the monster they've created... Russia intentionally entered communism, Cuba has. Germany embraced the Nazi party. many many more.... and in all cases they took quite some time to recognize the reality. Even the Roman Empire got where it was with Glee... and in each case, so far, eventual collapse. (okay don't shoot me now, I mean I suppose EVENTUALLY everything will collapse, but I think my point is the same....) __________________ Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.

05-05-2003, 06:06 AM	#12 (permalink)
Macheath Junkie Location: Sydney, Australia	I think what 4thTimeLucky is getting at is it would be technically possible for the US population to simply vote to repeal the first amedment.

05-10-2003, 10:59 PM	#14 (permalink)
iccky Psycho Location: Princeton, NJ	So in theory yes, we could do away with the first amendment and amend all the articles about the president so that he'd be appointed by the southern baptists, or the pope, or whoever. Back to the original question, theres a lot of academic research that says that thats exactly what will happen. Most Iraqis hate Israel and what America does in the region, so a democratically elected government would probablly do the same thing. Unless of course we put in a clause in their constitution that says "you have to like America." Think the Platt amendment for early 20th century Cuba. An interesting counterpoint: In Iran, probablly the most democratic country in the region, the elected officials are more liberal then the un-elected religious dictators. Of course even in Iran the elected officials can't to squat, but maybe its a sign that a true Muslim democracy would be more liberal then we all think.

05-10-2003, 11:15 PM	#15 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	iccky, Welcome to the board, I've read all of your post and you're well informed. Nice to see a twenty year old so knowledgeable on current events and foreign affairs.