Tuesday, February 01, 2005
The Iraqi Elections
No matter where you stand on the war in Iraq, you had to be amazed by the images of Iraqi’s, Sunni, Shia and Kurd dancing in the streets and proudly showing the ink stained fingers. But is this the greatest news of the year?
This question comes from the point of view that democracy and elections are the greatest good. While I think very highly of the liberal democratic system, it cannot be our greatest good. Lets not forget that Adolph Hitler was elected by a democratic system. At the same time, many great leaders have served, not from a democratic position, but from that of royalty (we don’t use this word often, but, dictatorship). Queen Elizabeth of England, King David of Israel, and the kings of Siam/Thailand all are examples of decent to great rulers who were not elected shows that while democracy is valuable, it is not the only way to govern a nation.
Having said that, I think that we should celebrate the election in Iraq as perhaps the best news of the year (depending on what comes next). When people vote, they feel they have ownership. Ownership raises the conviction to hold leaders accountable and encourages people to act in ways that benefit the long-term, not just the short-term.
I for one was appalled by those who said that democracy may not be for the Middle East. There is a clear question of whether Islam can be ruled by a secular government. Turkey has had multi-party elections, but the secularization of the nation has required religious parties to be disbanded and their election gains nullified. Iran has operated as a democracy in certain ways, but as we saw last year, the ruler council of religious leaders is more concerned about maintaining religious rule than allowing democracy to move the nation into secularism. The real challenge is will an Islamic nation allow such actions as a truly free press (including perhaps criticism of religious leaders and maybe even the Koran) and freedom of religion (including protecting the rights of Muslims to change their religion).
Secularism is not a panacea. As a Christian, and one whose hope is not in Social Security or the United States Army, but in the Kingdom of God, I get queasy when I see certain religious leaders trying to dictate certain policies. We know that “moral” and “ethical” behavior are brought about not by laws but by hearts that desire goodness. Churches and theologians have an absolute role to play in government and in dialogue about policy. But those same religious leaders and followers must remember that our hope can never be in political power.
At the same time secularism is really an unattainable goal. It becomes a religious movement itself. Everyone’s politics and hopes are motivated by some deeper set of beliefs. There is no reason why some beliefs should be allowed (those that are “secular") while others ("religious") are not allowed.
As a Christian, I will admit that in the past people have been burned, murdered, and jailed because there were attempts made to coerce Christians belief and/or behavior. This finds no support in the Biblical testimony and is an anathema to the Christian faith. We renounce such behavior. As the Iraqi’s go forward, it will be interesting to see if Islam is willing to do the same. Come to that, it will be equally interesting to see if the secular parties that are at work in the European Union will likewise commit to the “no coercion” idea?
