Spring Break
Knowledge Key to Democracy
Terence Detoy
Issue date: 10/21/05 Section: Commentary
The Bush administration maintains with its original fervor that the best strategy to uproot the insurgency in Iraq is to establish a firm democratic government. Somehow, through his repetitive and insipid rhetoric, President George W. Bush has raised a rather interesting question concerning the very nature of the insurgency's offensive and, inversely, democracy's role in Iraq's future. Despite the intrigue, the president has resolved himself to the pursuit of an impossibility.
Analysts have criticized Bush's approach as being simplistic and lacking the foresight to understand the true complexities of the issue, though one would have to adopt a doctrine of utter pessimism in order to believe the war in Iraq could possibly get more complex. As far as the democracy-insurgency dichotomy goes, one need only understand the circumstances of the recent referendum concerning the Iraqi Constitution. Insofar as this, the president has chosen to pursue the goals of Iraq's future in a faulty order.
It seems far-fetched - to say the least - that democracy in Iraq will end the insurgency. Rather, ending the insurgency is a necessary step to procuring a democratic government. The Iraqi Constitution referendum went well only in that it was uneventful. The dilemma presented to Iraqis was whether or not they approved of the drafted constitution. Their ballots consisted of two possible answers, "yes" or "no." A prerequisite for casting a meaningful ballot, one would imagine, would be having read the constitution - something only half of the Iraqi voters actually did, according to Jonathan Morrow, a constitutional advisor for the U.S. Institute for Peace.
There seems to be something of a general consensus that democracy is a positive step for Iraq, yet nothing good will come by implementing it haphazardly. The notion that democratic elections will end violent conflict in Iraq is a delusion the Bush administration has cast upon the nation time and time again.
There is, however, another reason for concern regarding the referendum. A central precept of democracy is that the voting body must have a thorough understanding of who or what it is voting for. An ignorant body politic in search of democracy defeats itself. Voters without a substantive body of knowledge become susceptible to manipulation. Elections are then subsequently won, not by those who represent the voters' interests, but by those with the power and willingness to manipulate. In his book "What's The Matter With Kansas?," Thomas Frank points out that the poor are often fooled into voting for candidates whose policy is disproportionately advantageous to the wealthy. This is hardly the extent of it. Prior to the 2004 presidential election, a GOP propaganda campaign distributed leaflets in mailboxes claiming the liberal agenda included banning bibles. Unfortunately, the poor who work several jobs to make ends meet usually don't find time to read the op-eds.
Analysts have criticized Bush's approach as being simplistic and lacking the foresight to understand the true complexities of the issue, though one would have to adopt a doctrine of utter pessimism in order to believe the war in Iraq could possibly get more complex. As far as the democracy-insurgency dichotomy goes, one need only understand the circumstances of the recent referendum concerning the Iraqi Constitution. Insofar as this, the president has chosen to pursue the goals of Iraq's future in a faulty order.
It seems far-fetched - to say the least - that democracy in Iraq will end the insurgency. Rather, ending the insurgency is a necessary step to procuring a democratic government. The Iraqi Constitution referendum went well only in that it was uneventful. The dilemma presented to Iraqis was whether or not they approved of the drafted constitution. Their ballots consisted of two possible answers, "yes" or "no." A prerequisite for casting a meaningful ballot, one would imagine, would be having read the constitution - something only half of the Iraqi voters actually did, according to Jonathan Morrow, a constitutional advisor for the U.S. Institute for Peace.
There seems to be something of a general consensus that democracy is a positive step for Iraq, yet nothing good will come by implementing it haphazardly. The notion that democratic elections will end violent conflict in Iraq is a delusion the Bush administration has cast upon the nation time and time again.
There is, however, another reason for concern regarding the referendum. A central precept of democracy is that the voting body must have a thorough understanding of who or what it is voting for. An ignorant body politic in search of democracy defeats itself. Voters without a substantive body of knowledge become susceptible to manipulation. Elections are then subsequently won, not by those who represent the voters' interests, but by those with the power and willingness to manipulate. In his book "What's The Matter With Kansas?," Thomas Frank points out that the poor are often fooled into voting for candidates whose policy is disproportionately advantageous to the wealthy. This is hardly the extent of it. Prior to the 2004 presidential election, a GOP propaganda campaign distributed leaflets in mailboxes claiming the liberal agenda included banning bibles. Unfortunately, the poor who work several jobs to make ends meet usually don't find time to read the op-eds.