Iraq: Growth Towards Democracy?

There seems to be a contradiction when Iraqis held free and fair elections in 2005, but according to Freedom House's rating scale of civil liberties and political rights, Iraq gets a 6, meaning that its status is not free. Even though Iraq held elections in 2005, it lacks several important criteria that a state needs to be considered a democracy. Iraq may be on its way to becoming a democracy, but there are necessary changes to be made before Iraq can be considered one.

When asking if Iraq is a democracy or not, it is important to accurately define what democracy is first. It is important to note that democracy is something that lies along a continuum. All democracies in the real world lie along a line that stretches from authoritarian government to illiberal democracy to weak democracy to solid liberal democracy. There is no example of a perfect, pure democracy. That said, a good definition of democracy is found in Schmitter and Karl's essay, What Democracy is...and is not: "Modern political democracy is a system of governance in which rulers are held accountable for their actions n the public realm by citizens, acting indirectly through the competition and cooperation of their elected representatives" (Schmitter and Karl, 162). So, after seeing this definition, it is appropriate to ask two things about Iraq: Are their rulers held accountable by the public? And if so, is the public holding them accountable through their elected delegates? The answers to these basic questions will help us see how far along Iraq is on the democracy scale.

First it is necessary to note that just because a country holds elections, does not mean it is a democracy. In fact, one of the best things an authoritarian or totalitarian leader can do is hold an election. Citizens are frightened and sometimes coerced into voting for the leader, and history has shown that supposed fair elections for totalitarian and authoritarian leaders usually end up in the leadership garnering somewhere around 80 to 90% of the vote. So although elections are a part of democracy, they do not mean democracy as many have mistakenly assumed. Iraq tried its hand at elections in 2005, and they are mostly considered a success for Iraq, but as Freedom House states, "the country remains under the influence of a foreign military presence and impairments caused by sectarian and insurgent violence" (Freedom in the World-Iraq, 4). The usage of the word impairments seems to be putting it very politely. Violence from insurgents, gangs, and militias plague Iraq daily preventing basic freedoms such as freedom of religion, expression, and press.

Schmitter and Karl make a very clear point about democratic countries: "The polity must be self governing; it must be able to act independently of constraints imposed by some other overarching political system" (Schmitter and Karl, 166). This makes sense: as a state and government, the leadership through the power of the people should have the last say in policy matters. Schmitter and Karl later ask, "Is a system really democratic if its elected officials are unable to make binding decisions without the approval of actors outside their territorial domain?" (Schmitter and Karl, 167). The answer to Schmitter and Karl's question is a resounding no. A system of governance that is truly democratic would rely on the people guiding the agenda, not on some outside force, whether good or bad. The real point of Schmitter and Karl's extra criteria on what makes a democracy is that a democratic country must have autonomy. When this rule is applied to Iraq, it is clear that it is not an autonomous state. As said earlier by Freedom House, "the country remains under the influence of a foreign military presence" (Freedom in the World-Iraq, 4). The violence that plagues Iraq is also a major threat to its autonomy. A state can't be completely autonomous if civil war and criminal gangs challenge the state's legitimacy throughout the country.

This brings up another important point about the nature of the Kurds in northern Iraq. The Kurds have a semi-autonomous state in northern Iraq known as Kurdistan. Freedom House states the, "Kurdish region constitutes a distinct polity within Iraq, boasting its own flag, military, and language" (Freedom in the World-Iraq, 4). This is important to note because it brings up another question about Iraq's autonomy as a state. They have a separate nation operating in a semi-autonomous state within their own borders. This is surely problematic and does not speak well for Iraq's autonomy on its own.

In Linz and Stepan's article, Toward Consolidated Democracies, they mention the importance of the rule of law: "All significant actors- especially the democratic government and the state apparatus-must be held accountable to, and become habituated to, the rule of law" (Linz and Stepan, 185). Individuals in Iraqi society are not free to express themselves either religiously or otherwise because there is no real rule of law in the Iraqi state. Freedom House states, "Iraq is plagued by pervasive corruption...Iraq was ranked 178 out of 180 countries surveyed in Transparency International's 2007 Corruption Perceptions Index" (Freedom in the World-Iraq, 5). The corruption problem in Iraq is a serious breach of the rule of law. By corruption being rampant, even throughout the upper levels of Iraq's governing system, no one is subject to the rule of the state. Freedom House also states that, "judges have come under immense political pressure and have largely been unable to pursue cases involving organized crime, corruption, and militia activity. Since 2003, some 30 judges have been killed" (Freedom in the World-Iraq, 6). Judges are unable to do adequately do their jobs because of threatened violence and surely corruption by surrounding officials. Freedom House reports that even, "police recruits have themselves been a target of violence" (Freedom in the World-Iraq, 6). This threat of violence that prohibits officials and citizens from carrying out their jobs and functions specifically violates one of Schmitter and Karl's criteria for a democracy: "Citizens have a right to express themselves without the danger of severe punishment on political matters broadly defined" (Schmitter and Karl, 166). This includes Judges not being able to carry out their functions or citizens not being able to express themselves freely under threat of "severe punishment" from gangs or sectarian forces.

So, given these postulates against Iraq being a democracy, what is it? Iraq is considered a failed state by many, given that it is simply unable to carry out on its own, the basic functions of a state. Robert Rotberg in his article, Failed States in a World of Terror, states that, "failed states are tense, conflicted, and dangerous. They generally share the following characteristics: a rise in criminal and political violence; rising ethnic, religious, linguistic, and cultural hostilities; civil war...deteriorated or insufficient infrastructure; high levels of corruption..." (Rotberg, 86). What Rotberg describes is too similar to Iraq not to call Iraq a failed state. At best Iraq is a weak state under foreign supervision. Since the end of Saddam's regime, the state hasn't had autonomy and cannot maintain basic state functions such as law and order. Rotberg also mentions several statistical indicators to look at for categorizing states, such as GDP, Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index, and Freedom House's Freedom report (Rotberg, 86). As stated previously, Iraq's Corruption Perception was rated 178 out of 180, and its Freedom House report is 6, seven being the least free. Both statistics are evidence that Iraq is currently a failed state. Iraq would be best categorized as a failed semi-autonomous state, under a somewhat democratic regime. This is not to say it is a democracy, just that the regime is trying to be, but the state lacks necessary components of a democracy as previously stated: rule of law, autonomy, freedom to act and carry out functions without severe punishment etc.

So, given that Iraq is not a democracy and is certainly a very weak state, if not a failed state, the next question is: What approach should it take towards becoming a democracy? It should probably continue along the path that it has been working towards, as it seems that a parliamentary democracy would benefit Iraq more than a presidential democracy. Freedom House states that, "Under the constitution, the president and two vice presidents are elected by parliament and must appoint the prime minister, who is nominated by the largest parliamentary bloc" (Freedom in the World-Iraq, 4). This seems to be the best approach for Iraq given that it has many different ethnic groups and would be more suited to proportional representation. The 275 seat lower house is already in effect, and the upper house, The Federal Council is still not together according to Freedom House's report (Freedom in the World-Iraq, 4). But the main concern for Iraq is to maintain law and order. Without rule of law first and foremost, Iraq won't be able to form into a functioning democracy. It won't be able to get off the ground if it can't come together and meet without threat of violence and corruption.

It has been put forth by some that Islam is incompatible with democracy. This seems to be somewhat of a narrow-minded and discriminatory view. It has also been charged that democracy cannot survive in ethnically divided societies; this view seems equally ridiculous. Every society is "ethnically divided" in some way. Just because a society is of a different religion or has different ethnic minorities doesn't mean they can't coexist, or come together as a state and decide things in a non-violent and participatory manner. Iraq has the potential to become a democracy. Its hang-ups are not because it's a primarily Muslim nation; it's because of the violence that is perceived as necessary by its factions to get things done. If rule of law by the government can be truly instituted in Iraq, then it can begin to go about becoming a democracy.

Iraq isn't a democracy. It isn't autonomous, which is necessary for a democracy, and it doesn't have rule of law by the state, which is also necessary. Iraq is currently a failed state, as it is unable to carry out some basic state functions and as corruption plagues its infrastructure, but if the current government, possibly with the help of the U.S. forces, can help regain law and order then it can operate autonomously and begin to go about achieving democracy.

Works Cited

Freedom in the World- Iraq (2008). Rep. Washington D.C.: Freedom House, 2008. Print.

Linz, Juan J., and Alfred Stepan. "Toward Consolidated Democracies." 1997. Readings in Comparative Politics. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006. Print.

Rotberg, Robert. "Failed States in a World of Terror." 2002. Readings in Comparative Politics. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006. Print.

Schmitter, Phillippe C., and Terry L. Karl. "What Democracy is...and is not." 1996. Readings in Comparative Politics. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006. Print