The media has predictably paid scant attention to the results of Saturday's constitutional referendum in Iraq. That's too bad. It's a big deal. With well over 60% of citizens participating, the referendum stands as a testament, however tenuous, to the democracy slowly taking hold throughout Iraq. Saturday's vote should be read as a rejoinder to the cultural bigots on the right and left who, though initially reluctant, have become more shrill in voicing their low expectations and have charged that Arabs, in general, and Iraqis, in particular, are unaccustomed to the practice and institutions of democracy and are, therefore, incapable of self-governance.
For those on the Left, however, the idea that the transition from a closed to an open society is fraught with peril for countries with no previous experience of political and social freedom is not so much a historical truism as it is an applause line, a simple shorthand used to denounce the war and hold up Iraq as a paradigmatic case of American hubris. The latest version of the idea (see any cable news channel round table) is usually expressed in vague talking point style sentences meant to convey a sense of historical folly to the Bush administration. Taken as a long-term, historical fact, the idea that countries with no tradition of democracy are unable to make the transition to an open society is self-defeating and obviously false. But the statement is also misleading in the short term. For it implies that the political process currently underway in Iraq is a Western and particularly Americanized force-feeding of a special brand of democracy, when, in fact, the proposed Iraqi constitution is not - except to the extent that it posits and protects rights belonging to all people (including minorities), and recognizes elections as expressions of popular will - a duplicate of the U.S. constitution at all. Instead, the Iraqi constitution captures what is most essential to democracy (e.g. it enshrines the rule of law over rulers, protects the rights of minorities, and allows for general elections) while incorporating Arabic (and Islamic) traditions into the political fabric of Iraq.
What is most disappointing in the Left's cynical response to the embryonic democracy in Iraq is the callous and flippant disregard for the Iraqi's obvious expression of hope and political will; and such cynicism should never inform our political hopes or an American agenda. A tragic history of violence and tyranny does not preclude a future of prosperity and freedom. A legacy of torture and oppression is not a genetic blueprint; it does not eclipse the hope for liberty and an open society - unless one believes that that hope belongs only to Americans.
Comments