Commentary>Daniel Schorr
from the October 18, 2002 edition

Impose vs. develop democracy


After Saddam Hussein, what? The question takes on a new pertinence now that President Bush has his license from Congress to use force. He has promised to help create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq. But the Iraqis, who have been ruled by a succession of tyrants since the British installed a king in 1921, don't know much about liberty.
E-mail this story
Write a letter to the Editor
Printer-friendly version

Get all the Monitor's headlines by e-mail.
Subscribe for free.

Until recently, the Bush administration had been divided about what a post-Saddam governing authority should look like. The Pentagon was working on a plan for seizing a piece of territory before or during an invasion and installing exiled groups as an interim government.

It is far from clear, however, that exiles returning from the diaspora would be welcomed by the long-repressed people. I remember post-World War II in Europe where people who had suffered during the Nazi occupation did not warm to returning exiles who had not shared their experience. King Leopold III returned to Belgium only to be forced by a general strike to abdicate. Prime Minister Pieter Gerbrandy returned to the Netherlands only to be voted out in the first post-war election. Putting quarreling exile factions in charge, which was a problem in Afghanistan, does not seem like a promising start on democracy in Iraq.

In the State Department, a concept circulated for a while of a United Nations authority backed by an American military force assisted by a council representing both exiles and Iraqis from within the country.

Lately the White House seems to be considering an occupation model, drawn from the precedents of Germany and Japan after World War II. This would provide for a straight-out American military government headed by an American general, a Douglas MacArthur type. An American occupation government would, it is believed, facilitate the search for weapons of mass destruction. It would also, incidentally, put America in control of the world's second biggest oil reserves.

At some future time, perhaps years, an election would be organized and a democratic government created. It seems clear that democracy cannot simply be imposed on a country that has never known democracy. It will have to be developed from within, like a delicate hothouse plant.

Daniel Schorr is a senior news analyst at National Public Radio.




For further information:
Life after Saddam Pravda
Iraq after Saddam Hussein BBC
Analysis: Iraq After Saddam Hussein NPR
After Saddam: A Power Vacuum May Give Washington Pause BusinessWeek
Iraqis Now Daring to Talk of Life After Hussein GlobalPolicy.org (2001)
Saddam Hussein & his family Out There News
Please Note: The Monitor does not endorse the sites behind these links. We offer them for your additional research. Following these links will open a new browser window.



Get Monitor stories by e-mail:
(Your e-mail address will be protected by csmonitor.com's tough privacy policy.)

In Pictures
Fireworks: A party in the sky

ELECTION '08 Patchwork Nation
The American voter beyond red and blue

FISHERIES Empty Oceans Series
The sea is no longer so vast.


Daily podcast

Monitor Reports

Discussions with Monitor reporters from around the world


Today

Peter Grier

Honduras has two presidents, but no solution to the country's political crisis.




Making a difference
Making a Difference

What happens when ordinary people decide to pay it forward? Extraordinary change. See how individuals are making a difference, finding solutions, overcoming adversity, and giving back globally.

Jeremy Gilley, founder of the nonprofit Peace One Day, talks with students at Cambridge Rindge and Latin High School in Cambridge, Mass.

Melanie Stetson Freeman/Staff

People making a difference: Jeremy Gilley

This actor and filmmaker envisions that world peace begins with just one day of peace.