Do you believe we are creating a liberal or conservative government in Iraq...

[Taco John]

Just curious what people think...

[Nightwish]

According to their constitution and all other indications, we're creating a theocratic government in Iraq. Islam is a very conservative religion, so I think the answer should be obvious.

[Taco John]

According to their constitution and all other indications, we're creating a theocratic government in Iraq. Islam is a very conservative religion, so I think the answer should be obvious.


That's an interesting perspective.

Personally, I don't see religion as defining "left/right." I more see it as an issue of dependance on government.

Personally, I think we've created an environment where the citizens of Iraq will be very dependant on government to meet their needs, and thus very liberally oriented government.

[Nightwish]

That's an interesting perspective.

Personally, I don't see religion as defining "left/right." I more see it as an issue of dependance on government.

Personally, I think we've created an environment where the citizens of Iraq will be very dependant on government to meet their needs, and thus very liberally oriented government.
That's a valid way to look at it, I suppose. However, in this instance, I don't think liberal and conservative can be juxtaposed with left and right. It is left-wing, because the government has overwhelming control over the lives of the populace, but it is based on very conservative values.

[Logical]

What is being created is a reactionary theocracy. Whether it is liberal or conservative probably depends on a persons perspective. The one thing that is clear to me is that we are promulgating an atmosphere of class warfare based on religion that will likely never work and will fall shortly after we withdraw to be replaced by something probably more radical than what we see in Syria and Iran.

[Kraut]

What is being created is a reactionary theocracy. Whether it is liberal or conservative probably depends on a persons perspective. The one thing that is clear to me is that we are promulgating an atmosphere of class warfare based on religion that will likely never work and will fall shortly after we withdraw to be replaced by something probably more radical than what we see in Syria and Iran.
I hope your wrong, but there is a part of me that agrees with you 100%.

[patteeu]

It's idiotic to call the current government a theocracy. Given that, I guess it's no surprise that Nightwish and Logical say that's exactly what's going on. :rolleyes:

It might someday turn into a theocracy (although that won't happen unless we withdraw our troops prematurely), but for now it is not. It's a secular government which is influenced by strong religious forces within some of the political parties. Think about it for a minute. Wouldn't it be odd for a real theocracy to attract support from Sunni, Shiite, and secular forces alike? Of course it would.

My answer probably should have been "other" because I don't think the liberal and conservative labels are easily applied here, but I voted for "liberal" for the reason Taco mentioned. This government controls the major natural resource of the country (oil) and the new Bush aid initiative is moving Iraq toward a New Deal style social welfare solution.

The counterargument, IMO, would be that the new government is rooted in fairly traditional values (Iraqi muslim values, that is) which in America tends to be a "conservative" concept, but I think conservative vs. liberal, I usually think in terms of economics.

[redbrian]

We (and I assume you mean the US) are not creating any government in Iraq.

The Iraqi people are creating a government.

Even though the people of Iraq had to deal with a hell of lot more than the most disenfranchised voter in the US they turned out a substantially larger electorate than the US in any election in modern times.

[Nightwish]

It's idiotic to call the current government a theocracy.
You haven't actually read their constitution, have you?

Wouldn't it be odd for a real theocracy to attract support from Sunni, Shiite, and secular forces alike? Of course it would.
No it wouldn't be all that odd. You'll find similar multi-faceted support in other theocratic nations, such as Saudi Arabia. The theocratic nature of the constitution was framed by a combination of Shi'ite, Kurdish and Sunni representatives. It is based on Islamic Law, and only awaits one faction or another to assume real control of the government to assert which interpretational twist on Sharia will be applied, whether it will be a Shi'ite, Sunni or Kurdish twist, or a neopolitan twist. Sharia is not a sectarian construct, all the Islamic sects believe in the same Law. What differs is their interpretation and execution of that Law.

[Taco John]

It's idiotic to call the current government a theocracy. Given that, I guess it's no surprise that Nightwish and Logical say that's exactly what's going on. :rolleyes:



Didn't the Iraqis implement Sharia law into their constitution? I know this was talked about at one point in time. If their constitution is embedded with Sharia law, I don't think it would be too far off the mark to call it a theocracy.

[patteeu]

You haven't actually read their constitution, have you?

I don't have to to know you're FOS. I've read enough of it and about it to know that you have to have an exceedingly broad definition of "theocracy" to call the Iraqi government one. As usual, you've come up with your own personal definition for a word and you use it as though it is a universally accepted one.

No it wouldn't be all that odd. You'll find similar multi-faceted support in other theocratic nations, such as Saudi Arabia. The theocratic nature of the constitution was framed by a combination of Shi'ite, Kurdish and Sunni representatives. It is based on Islamic Law, and only awaits one faction or another to assume real control of the government to assert which interpretational twist on Sharia will be applied, whether it will be a Shi'ite, Sunni or Kurdish twist, or a neopolitan twist. Sharia is not a sectarian construct, all the Islamic sects believe in the same Law. What differs is their interpretation and execution of that Law.

While Saudi Arabia might have some characteristics of a theocracy, it's not really a theocracy. The head of the monarchy is the supreme ruler and the religious leaders/judges are subservient to him. Besides, Saudi Arabia's government can't be said to have the voluntary support of secular, shiite, and sunni groups alike.

Iraq's government is not strictly walled off from religion like ours tends to be, but it's not subservient to religion either. The constitution declares Islam as the national religion and insists that laws be consistent with undisputed islamic law, but that is a far cry from a true theocracy where clergy exert all the power or bestow all legitimacy on the government. In fact, the presence of a constitution developed by the people and granting a portion of the people's sovereignty to the government is a strong argument against the notion that Iraq is a theocracy.

[oldandslow]

NW...

Classic Patteeu argument - simply change definitions in order to meet his own predetermined worldview...

From wiki---For believers in a religion whose institutions have been more or less equated with the state's institutions in a theocracy, a theocracy is a form of government in which the divine power (in monotheisms the one God) governs an earthly human state, either in person (e.g. as incarnation in a human) or, more often, via its religious institutional representative(s) (e.g. church, temple), either replacing or dominating the organs of civil government as clerical or spiritual representative(s) of god(s).

I think you can make a pretty good argument that the Koran and the Clergy is ruling in Iraq - and that the constitution facilitates that.

We could leave troops there 20 years and that basic fact would not change.

[Taco John]

Iraq's government is not strictly walled off from religion like ours tends to be, but it's not subservient to religion either. The constitution declares Islam as the national religion and insists that laws be consistent with undisputed islamic law, but that is a far cry from a true theocracy where clergy exert all the power or bestow all legitimacy on the government. In fact, the presence of a constitution developed by the people and granting a portion of the people's sovereignty to the government is a strong argument against the notion that Iraq is a theocracy.


You're going to have to define "far cry" for me, because apparently we have different ideas about what this means.

[patteeu]

NW...

Classic Patteeu argument - simply change definitions in order to meet his own predetermined worldview...

From wiki---For believers in a religion whose institutions have been more or less equated with the state's institutions in a theocracy, a theocracy is a form of government in which the divine power (in monotheisms the one God) governs an earthly human state, either in person (e.g. as incarnation in a human) or, more often, via its religious institutional representative(s) (e.g. church, temple), either replacing or dominating the organs of civil government as clerical or spiritual representative(s) of god(s).

I think you can make a pretty good argument that the Koran and the Clergy is ruling in Iraq - and that the constitution facilitates that.

We could leave troops there 20 years and that basic fact would not change.

Is it classic oldandslow to cherry pick half of a definition from a website that contains a disclaimer as to the accuracy of it's content instead of providing a more complete definition from a less dubious source in order to influence people toward his worldview?

Also from your wiki source:

Most modern descriptive dictionaries explain that the word is used in most carefully edited texts in English to mean either government by immediate divine guidance (close to the usage described above) or, more commonly, as government by or subject to religious institutions and priests (or a state ruled in this way). In other words, for people who do not believe in a theocracy's religion or feel that its religious institutions do not represent the religion well, a theocracy is a form of Gleichschaltung that purports to fulfill a divine intention but instead simply fulfills the goals of the ruling priests.

And

This article or section does not cite its references or sources.
Please help improve this article by introducing appropriate citations. (help, get involved!)
This article has been tagged since June 2006.

Here is a definition of "theocracy" from dictionary.com:

1. a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
2. a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.
3. a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.

From American Heritage:

1. A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
2. A state so governed.

From Wordnet:

1. a political unit governed by a deity (or by officials thought to be divinely guided)
2. the belief in government by divine guidance

From American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, 3rd Ed.:

A nation or state in which the clergy exercise political power and in which religious law is dominant over civil law. Iran led by the Ayatollah Khomeini was a theocracy under the Islamic clergy.


source (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theocracy)

Now, I think we can agree that Iraq isn't being ruled directly by clergy, but instead by elected citizens who may or may not be clergy (and in most cases they are not). While the Iraqi constitution does indicate that civil law should not contradict undisputed islamic law, the constitution is the supreme law of the land and should it be amended, it will be the constitution that guides the government, not islamic law. The government of Iraq is not subservient to it's religious influences. This is not true in real theocracies like Iran.

Iraq's government, like England's, Saudi Arabia's, and Norway's, has some theocratic elements, but it is quite an exageration to call it a theocracy IMO.

[oldandslow]

Patteeu-

I chose wiki, but you are right, I could have chosen any of the others.

The argument holds. The Koran is the supreme law in Iraq and it is upheld in the constitution. That to me is a Theocracy.

[patteeu]

Patteeu-

I chose wiki, but you are right, I could have chosen any of the others.

The argument holds. The Koran is the supreme law in Iraq and it is upheld in the constitution. That to me is a Theocracy.

The Koran is not the supreme law of the land in Iraq, the constitution is. If the Koran was supreme, adherence to a subset of islamic law couldn't be amended out of the constitution.

[patteeu]

Patteeu-

I chose wiki, but you are right, I could have chosen any of the others.


It's not wiki that I have a problem with. In fact, wiki is probably a decent place to look for something like this because it would tend to reflect the common understanding of the terminology. It was the fact that that particular page was tagged as lacking supporting references for the assertions made.

[oldandslow]

The Koran is not the supreme law of the land in Iraq, the constitution is. If the Koran was supreme, adherence to a subset of islamic law couldn't be amended out of the constitution.

Do you know if it is even possible to amend the Iraqi constitution?

Further, I really think your argument is superflous. Iraqi's amending their constitution to get rid of "the Koran's undisputed law" would be like us amending our constitution to get rid of the 3 branches of govt.

[BucEyedPea]

Liberal and Conservative are relative terms.

What are they conserving that was already there?
What are they liberalizing from,that was already there?

But if they're going to be dependent on govt? That to me is not at all liberal or conservative.

I don't know.

[patteeu]

Do you know if it is even possible to amend the Iraqi constitution?

Further, I really think your argument is superflous. Iraqi's amending their constitution to get rid of "the Koran's undisputed law" would be like us amending our constitution to get rid of the 3 branches of govt.

Yes, the Iraqi constitution can be amended.

The constitution indicates that Iraqi law will be based on three co-equal principles:

A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.

B. No law that contradicts the principles of democracy may be established.

C. No law that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this constitution may be established.

I'm not an expert on Islamic law, but it seems to me that by the time you get done distilling it down to the undisputed portion that is common between Sunni and Shia alike and reconciling that with principles of democracy and the long list of rights and basic freedoms included in the constitution, you've moved away from a government that is best characterized as being "ruled by the Koran and the Clergy."

To see the list of rights listed in the Iraqi Constitution, here is an English language version (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/12/AR2005101201450.html) of the draft that was voted on in Oct. 2005.

[Taco John]

But if they're going to be dependent on govt? That to me is not at all liberal or conservative.




Then what is it?

[BucEyedPea]

Then what is it?

I said I didn't know.

But it's definitely not conservative,if you mean by dependence as in cradle-to-grave welfare state, which is what it means to me. If you mean there will be social/moral legislation....it depends on what form it takes and how much. If none, then it would be libertarian which I doubt it is there.

If liberal means not running people's personal lives but dependent on the state for economic controls for social justice and fairness then it wouldn't be that either.

Liberal and conservative are relative terms. They vary on the context and definitions. The conservatives in the former Soviet Union were the communists as that was the status quo.

[penchief]

I'm not sure that we put much thought into what kind of government we were creating. I think we were more interested in imposing our will.

[Logical]

It's idiotic to call the current government a theocracy. Given that, I guess it's no surprise that Nightwish and Logical say that's exactly what's going on. :rolleyes:.....

ROFL follow your own debate in this thread and you circle yourself right down the debate drain. By the way I voted other. Do you even understand the concept of a reactionary theocracy? It is when the leadership base their governing decisions around the tenets of their faith.

[patteeu]

ROFL follow your own debate in this thread and you circle yourself right down the debate drain. By the way I voted other. Do you even understand the concept of a reactionary theocracy? It is when the leadership base their governing decisions around the tenets of their faith.

Given your hatred of religion, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that you think the US has a theocracy just because Christmas is an official holiday.

[Logical]

Given your hatred of religion, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that you think the US has a theocracy just because Christmas is an official holiday.

Nice try at diversion.

[patteeu]

Nice try at diversion.

To call Iraq a theocracy, even moreso, a reactionary theocracy, you're adopting something similar to the "one drop rule." The leadership do not base their decisions "around the tenets of their faith" as you claim. That is only one factor among several and only the most universal of tenets are a factor at all.

I'll concede that there is a theocratic element within the Iraqi governing model as it is currently defined by their constitution and that it isn't as "idiotic" to raise the issue as I first claimed, but I still think it's going too far to call it a theocracy. The Taliban was a theocracy. Iran is a theocracy. Vatican City is a theocracy. The rejected Islamists in Somalia wanted to establish a theocracy. Saudi Arabia and Iraq's governments contain theocratic elements, but they aren't theocracies. Saudi Arabia's monarch is not bound by Islamic law and Iraq's government is based on a constitution derived from the people that sets up a compromise between a subset of Islamic law, democratic principles, classical liberal rights, and socialism. If Iraq is a theocracy, it's also a libertarian government, a socialist government, and a democracy. I guess that makes it a libertarian socialist democratic theocracy.

What kind of theocracy is based on democratic principles where the people have the ultimate authority and can exercise that authority to remove Islamic law altogether? I don't think it's a theocracy to begin with, but at this fundamental level it fails the test completely.

[Logical]

To call Iraq a theocracy, even moreso, a reactionary theocracy, you're adopting something similar to the "one drop rule." The leadership do not base their decisions "around the tenets of their faith" as you claim. That is only one factor among several and only the most universal of tenets are a factor at all.

I'll concede that there is a theocratic element within the Iraqi governing model as it is currently defined by their constitution and that it isn't as "idiotic" to raise the issue as I first claimed, but I still think it's going too far to call it a theocracy. The Taliban was a theocracy. Iran is a theocracy. Vatican City is a theocracy. The rejected Islamists in Somalia wanted to establish a theocracy. Saudi Arabia and Iraq's governments contain theocratic elements, but they aren't theocracies. Saudi Arabia's monarch is not bound by Islamic law and Iraq's government is based on a constitution derived from the people that sets up a compromise between a subset of Islamic law, democratic principles, classical liberal rights, and socialism. If Iraq is a theocracy, it's also a libertarian government, a socialist government, and a democracy. I guess that makes it a libertarian socialist democratic theocracy.

What kind of theocracy is based on democratic principles where the people have the ultimate authority and can exercise that authority to remove Islamic law altogether? I don't think it's a theocracy to begin with, but at this fundamental level it fails the test completely.

A better argument but you somehow got diverted onto Saudi Arabia who I never mentioned. If I were to choose a similar reactionary theocracy it would be the Egyptian government.

[Dave Lane]

I think we are creating chaos in Iraq. Nothing more nothing less...

Dave

[Dave Lane]

ROFL follow your own debate in this thread and you circle yourself right down the debate drain. By the way I voted other. Do you even understand the concept of a reactionary theocracy? It is when the leadership base their governing decisions around the tenets of their faith.


Boy I know our current government would never engage in something like that! :rolleyes:

Dave

[patteeu]

A better argument but you somehow got diverted onto Saudi Arabia who I never mentioned. If I were to choose a similar reactionary theocracy it would be the Egyptian government.

Saudi Arabia was mentioned by someone else earlier in the thread. That's why it was in my mind.

I don't know much about Egypt's government, but I'd guess that it's even less theocratic than Saudi Arabia. What can you tell me about it's theocratic characteristics?

[Logical]

Saudi Arabia was mentioned by someone else earlier in the thread. That's why it was in my mind.

I don't know much about Egypt's government, but I'd guess that it's even less theocratic than Saudi Arabia. What can you tell me about it's theocratic characteristics?

This is the best though brief description of the interplay. According to the constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Egypt), any new legislation must implicitly agree with Islamic laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia). The mainstream Hanafi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanafi) school of Sunni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni) Islam is largely organised by the state, through Wizaret Al-Awkaf (Ministry of Religious Affairs). Al-Awkaf controls all mosques and overviews Muslim clerics. Imams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imams) are trained in Imam vocational schools and at Al-Azhar University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Azhar_University). The department supports Sunni Islam and has commissions authorised to give Fatwa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatwa) judgements on Islamic issues.