Fareed Zakaria is someone who I'm mixed about, especially regarding certain aspects of recent foreign policy (although whenever a blind neocon like Richard Perle comes on 'This Week', Zakaria serves as the voice of reason), but he's written two very good articles lately regarding democracy in Iraq and the Middle East, and America's missed opportunities and wrongdoings in achieving such a goal. The first one was an excellent one regarding US hypocracy and how the Bush administration is failing to live up to its pretentions of freedom and democracy through some of its alliances. This recent one adds some sense to the debate over the significance of these elections in the development of Iraqi democracy. Take a look:

Elections Are Not Democracy
The United States has essentially stopped trying to build a democratic order in Iraq, and is simply trying to gain stability and legitimacy

By Fareed Zakaria
Newsweek


Feb. 7 issue - By the time you read this, you will know how the elections in Iraq have gone. No matter what the violence, the elections are an important step forward, for Iraq and for the Middle East. But it is also true, alas, that no matter how the voting turns out, the prospects for genuine democracy in Iraq are increasingly grim. Unless there is a major change in course, Iraq is on track to become another corrupt, oil-rich quasi-democracy, like Russia and Nigeria.

In April 2003, around the time Baghdad fell, I published a book that described the path to liberal democracy. In it, I pointed out that there had been elections in several countries around the world—most prominently Russia—that put governments in place that then abused their authority and undermined basic human rights. I called such regimes illiberal democracies. In NEWSWEEK that month, I outlined the three conditions Iraq had to fulfill to avoid this fate. It is currently doing badly at all three.

First, you need to avoid major ethnic or religious strife. In almost any "divided" society, elections can exacerbate group tensions unless there is a strong effort to make a deal between the groups, getting all to buy into the new order. "The one precondition for democracy to work is a consensus among major ethnic, regional, or religious groups," says Larry Diamond, one of the leading experts on democratization. This has not happened. Instead the Shia, Sunnis and Kurds are increasingly wary of one another and are thinking along purely sectarian lines. This "groupism" also overemphasizes the religious voices in these communities, and gives rise to a less secular, less liberal kind of politics.


Second, create a non-oil-based economy and government. When a government has easy access to money, it doesn't need to create a real economy. In fact, it doesn't need its citizens because it doesn't tax them. The result is a royal court, distant and detached from its society.

Iraq's oil revenues were supposed to be managed well, going into a specially earmarked development fund rather than used to finance general government activities. The Coalition Provisional Authority steered this process reasonably well, though its auditors gave it a less-than-glowing review. Since the transfer of power to the Iraqi provisional government, Iraq's oil revenues have been managed in an opaque manner, with scarce information. "There is little doubt that Iraq is now using its oil wealth for general revenues," says Isam al Khafaji, who worked for the CPA briefly and now runs Iraq Revenue Watch for the Open Society Institute. "Plus, the Iraqi government now has two sources of easy money. If the oil revenues aren't enough, there's Uncle Sam. The United States is spending its money extremely unwisely in Iraq."


This is a complaint one hears over and over again. America is spending billions of dollars in Iraq and getting very little for it in terms of improvements on the ground, let alone the good will of the people. "Most of the money is being spent for reasons of political patronage, not creating the basis for a real economy," says al Khafaji. Most of it is spent on Americans, no matter what the cost. The rest goes to favored Iraqis. "We have studied this and I can say with certainty that not a single Iraqi contractor has received his contract through a bidding process that was open and transparent."

The rule of law is the final, crucial condition. Without it, little else can work. Paul Bremer did an extremely good job building institutional safeguards for the new Iraq, creating a public-integrity commission, an election commission, a human-rights commission, inspectors general in each bureaucratic government department. Some of these have survived, but most have been shelved, corrupted, or marginalized. The courts are in better shape but could well follow the same sad fate of these other building blocks of liberal democracy. Iraq's police are routinely accused of torture and abuse of authority.


Much of the reason for this decline is, of course, the security situation. The United States has essentially stopped trying to build a democratic order in Iraq and is simply trying to fight the insurgency and gain some stability and legitimacy. In doing so, if that exacerbates group tensions, corruption, cronyism, and creates an overly centralized regime, so be it. Lawrence Kaplan, a neoconservative writer passionately in favor of the war, who coauthored "The War Over Iraq: Saddam's Tyranny and America's Mission" with William Kristol, has just returned from Iraq and written a deeply gloomy essay in the current The New Republic. His conclusion: "The war for a liberal Iraq is destroying the dream of a liberal Iraq."

Iraq will still be a country that is substantially better off than it was under Saddam Hussein. There is real pluralism and openness in the society—more so than in most of the Middle East. Russia and Nigeria aren't terrible regimes. But it was not what many of us had hoped for. Perhaps some of these negative trends can be reversed. Perhaps the Shia majority will use their power wisely. But Iraqi democracy is now at the mercy of that majority, who we must hope will listen to their better angels. That is not a sign of success. "If men were angels," James Madison once wrote, "no government would be necessary."

© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.
URL: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6885455/site/newsweek/

The very simple fact that the cover of Newsweek has "Insurgents" rather than the heroic people of Iraq for showing up to vote in defiance of the insurgents tells me that "newsweek" wanted this election to fail and therefor doesn't deserve ANY debate.

You've got to be kidding.

Why? Because liberalism is about defeatism? Why would you not report the good news?

Hah, now I know your kidding.

Not sure what SOHPJ is trying to say, but I disagree that liberalism is about defeatism, although there are many liberal-types that want us to fail in Iraq.

Not all liberals want us to fail...but the far-left sure as hell does. It is my opinion that they can't stand that the elections turn out was so good because they had nothing to do with it. In fact, they thought it would never happen......

This I will agree with. It's pretty sad...

"Defeatist" is the new conservative buzzword to further demonize everyone that doesn't think like they do. I guess Mehlman forgot to CC you this RNC directive.

Apologies....how about "pessimistic"?

How about, "cautiously realistic."

I for one was extremely happy to see the cover of the NY Times this morning, with the women proudly displaying their ink-covered fingers. It's great, and I'm glad that this step of the process went well. I sincerely hope the trend continues.

Absolutely, for once, NY TIMES got it right.

Newsweek is FAR from liberal.

Maybe they put insurgents on the cover because it sells their watered down rag better than good news, but it's not because they're defeatists.

Shit, did you happen to miss their cover two months ago after the election with GWB? It looked like he had a beatific glow around his head. I nearly barfed.

--PunkDavid

Additionally, a government is not a country or province or state or it's people. A government is simply supposed to represent the populace of those things, not actually BE those things.
Some people get their panties so bunched up because they think that if you dont agree with what our government is doing, then you are being anti american. But the government isnt america. You can still be anti government and pro america at the same time.

</ramble>

I want the 2 minutes I have spent reading this thread back, immediately.

Yes. I think it's the duty of all Americans to be critical of their government.