Election in Iraq
- Thread starter sufi
- Start date
k-punk
Spectres of Mark
Uh, this is what always happens when things get personal. Much better if we stick to arguments, with reasons, rather than ad hominem attacks which by their very nature can only descend into name-calling.
I would want to pose things differently. What is supposedly good about democracy? I mean, actual democracy, representative democracy, democracy as it has always been practiced not democracy as some hazy ideal. It seems to me that democracy is only good for one thing: curbing tyranny.
So really, it is not the Leftist opposition who have 'no positive alternative'. Democracy is itself 'no positive alternative', something that has no positive appeal in itself and which garners whatever ethical and libidinal legitimation it has from NOT being another type of regime.
Surely even the most enthusiastic advocates of 'capitalist parliamentarianism' (Badiou) would have to admit that democracy has in effect meant dictatorship by an elite. In America, the marginal differences between the only two parties capable of being elected are well-known, meaning that the so-called choice is between one bunch of 'Ivy League pricks' (H. Hughes) or another and most of the population is effectively disenfranchised. In the UK, things have gone backwards; where once, train drivers and coalminers could run the country, now it's permanently in the hands of the Oxbridge Lawyer elite.
As Badiou argues, though, this is no accident, it is part of the very logic of democracy.
'None of the parties which have engaged in the parliamentary system and won governing power has ever escaped what I would call the subjective law of 'democracy', which is, when all is said and done, what Marx called an 'authorized representative' of capital. And I think this is because, in order to participate in electoral or governmental representation, you have to conform to the subjectivity it demands - that is, a principle of continuity, the principle of the politiuqe unique - the principle of 'this is the way it is, there is nothing to be done', the principle of Maastricht, of a Europe in conformity with the financial markets, and so on. In France, we've known this for a long time, for again and again, when left-wing parties come to power, they bring with them themes of disappointment, broken promises, and so forth. I think we need to see this as an inflexible law, not as a matter of corruption. I don;t think it happens because people change their minds, but because parliamentary subjectivity compels it.' (Ethics, 99)
The point is, if democracy's only redeeming quality is its curbing of tyranny, then it is ineffective, because there is a form of tyranny that exceeds that of any individual nation: the tyranny of global kapital.
I would want to pose things differently. What is supposedly good about democracy? I mean, actual democracy, representative democracy, democracy as it has always been practiced not democracy as some hazy ideal. It seems to me that democracy is only good for one thing: curbing tyranny.
So really, it is not the Leftist opposition who have 'no positive alternative'. Democracy is itself 'no positive alternative', something that has no positive appeal in itself and which garners whatever ethical and libidinal legitimation it has from NOT being another type of regime.
Surely even the most enthusiastic advocates of 'capitalist parliamentarianism' (Badiou) would have to admit that democracy has in effect meant dictatorship by an elite. In America, the marginal differences between the only two parties capable of being elected are well-known, meaning that the so-called choice is between one bunch of 'Ivy League pricks' (H. Hughes) or another and most of the population is effectively disenfranchised. In the UK, things have gone backwards; where once, train drivers and coalminers could run the country, now it's permanently in the hands of the Oxbridge Lawyer elite.
As Badiou argues, though, this is no accident, it is part of the very logic of democracy.
'None of the parties which have engaged in the parliamentary system and won governing power has ever escaped what I would call the subjective law of 'democracy', which is, when all is said and done, what Marx called an 'authorized representative' of capital. And I think this is because, in order to participate in electoral or governmental representation, you have to conform to the subjectivity it demands - that is, a principle of continuity, the principle of the politiuqe unique - the principle of 'this is the way it is, there is nothing to be done', the principle of Maastricht, of a Europe in conformity with the financial markets, and so on. In France, we've known this for a long time, for again and again, when left-wing parties come to power, they bring with them themes of disappointment, broken promises, and so forth. I think we need to see this as an inflexible law, not as a matter of corruption. I don;t think it happens because people change their minds, but because parliamentary subjectivity compels it.' (Ethics, 99)
The point is, if democracy's only redeeming quality is its curbing of tyranny, then it is ineffective, because there is a form of tyranny that exceeds that of any individual nation: the tyranny of global kapital.
(someone ought to reply to this, though i might regret doing so...)
that sounds more like Proudhon than Marx (who was at least in part a supporter of parliamentary democracy, a mass socialist party and so forth)
it is a very interesting point though, broadly i think you're right but representative democracy does stop certain things from happening. you tend not to get eg famine in countries with a 'capitalist democratic' system, or the sort of systematic cruelty that characterises most oligrachies or despotisms, its a subtler, and vastly more preferable tyranny....though it could be said that the latter frequently exist due to the patronage of the former.
that sounds more like Proudhon than Marx (who was at least in part a supporter of parliamentary democracy, a mass socialist party and so forth)
it is a very interesting point though, broadly i think you're right but representative democracy does stop certain things from happening. you tend not to get eg famine in countries with a 'capitalist democratic' system, or the sort of systematic cruelty that characterises most oligrachies or despotisms, its a subtler, and vastly more preferable tyranny....though it could be said that the latter frequently exist due to the patronage of the former.
Hmm .....Amatya Sen recently argued that no famine can occur in a democracy (observer.co.uk) which received some interesting critical analysis - particularly from an Indian acaddemic Vandana Shiva who pointed out that famine has returned to India despite democracy . Shiva attributed this to global organisations such as the WTO and World Bank decoupling economic democracy from political democracy. Not sure this proves anything other than exceptions and rules etc..
craner
Beast of Burden
Curbing tyranny – curbing actual tyranny, that’s throwing
dissenters in vats of boiling water-style tyranny,
one-party-plus-lethal-technology-rule-type tyranny – is not
insubstantial, as yesterday's queues and large turnout and street parties paid
testament too. You may not value that, but you’ve yet to have your
right to political debate or dissent revoked.
If there’s an inflexible law that conditions Democracy Everywhere
then be clear about the inflexible flaw: say it in one clear sentence.
Once, you said, train drivers and coal minors could run the country, but
now it’s run by Oxbridge Lawyers. Presumably, it still counted as a
democracy when run by coal minors and train drivers: as you implicitly
argue, more of a democracy, a better democracy. The flaw with democracy
is, then, the fact that right now, in the UK, it’s run by Oxbridge
Lawyers. (Well, a few Oxbridge Lawyers.) Sorry, this is beyond me.
What’s the inflexible law again?
All political systems are run and ruled by elites, and I challenge you
to find me a legitimate exception. Elite: whether the philosopher-kings
of Socrates and Plato or the Tikriti thugs of Saddam’s court or the
Bolshevik and Menshevik circles who pushed the Communist Revolution into
reality in Russia, then proceeded to squander it and fall prey to a more
vicious version of ‘Dictatorship of the Proletariat’…
It’s not politics that’s the concern of an elite…it’s political
systems that are run by elites, whatever that ‘elite’ means. Power
is always concentrated. Power can only be concentrated before being
dispersed.
The idea of defining democracy by its fatalism is old and old and old
again: it’s easy to define anything by its worst aspects and its
side-effects. There where worse things to battle than ennui, anxiety,
and depression in the Soviet Bloc.
Before deciding to banish our right to vote democratically and debate
openly and challenge things in court openly, describe an alternative
political system that would maintain these fundamental things…as well as
increase the sum of human happiness, not misery.
The objective law of politics…sounds quite sinister to me. Ask yourself
whether Badiou’s grasp of political philosophy and history is strong
enough to discard democracy so easily. I doubt it. His analysis of 9/11
and Afghanistan was just junk, for example.
Don’t make the mistake of thinking that low voter turnout in one
country or a bad education system in one country or the death of fine
art should somehow condemn the intricate and flexible foundation of
democracy, which is far richer than you give credit for, or realise.
Democracy is not a “hazy ideal” – I don’t think people who
support it actually see it so: it’s an imperfect system that,
nevertheless, adapts itself to different States more or less
effectively, whether that’s here or in Israel or South Africa or
(we’ll soon see) Afghanistan.
You want to avoid this, or assert that it can be avoided, by subsuming
it to 'Global Kapitol'.
So, now, how do you banish global capital? How do you banish global
capitalism? As far as I'm aware, it's called trade, and mankind would
require a collective lobotomy to abolishthe impulse to trade.
dissenters in vats of boiling water-style tyranny,
one-party-plus-lethal-technology-rule-type tyranny – is not
insubstantial, as yesterday's queues and large turnout and street parties paid
testament too. You may not value that, but you’ve yet to have your
right to political debate or dissent revoked.
If there’s an inflexible law that conditions Democracy Everywhere
then be clear about the inflexible flaw: say it in one clear sentence.
Once, you said, train drivers and coal minors could run the country, but
now it’s run by Oxbridge Lawyers. Presumably, it still counted as a
democracy when run by coal minors and train drivers: as you implicitly
argue, more of a democracy, a better democracy. The flaw with democracy
is, then, the fact that right now, in the UK, it’s run by Oxbridge
Lawyers. (Well, a few Oxbridge Lawyers.) Sorry, this is beyond me.
What’s the inflexible law again?
All political systems are run and ruled by elites, and I challenge you
to find me a legitimate exception. Elite: whether the philosopher-kings
of Socrates and Plato or the Tikriti thugs of Saddam’s court or the
Bolshevik and Menshevik circles who pushed the Communist Revolution into
reality in Russia, then proceeded to squander it and fall prey to a more
vicious version of ‘Dictatorship of the Proletariat’…
It’s not politics that’s the concern of an elite…it’s political
systems that are run by elites, whatever that ‘elite’ means. Power
is always concentrated. Power can only be concentrated before being
dispersed.
The idea of defining democracy by its fatalism is old and old and old
again: it’s easy to define anything by its worst aspects and its
side-effects. There where worse things to battle than ennui, anxiety,
and depression in the Soviet Bloc.
Before deciding to banish our right to vote democratically and debate
openly and challenge things in court openly, describe an alternative
political system that would maintain these fundamental things…as well as
increase the sum of human happiness, not misery.
The objective law of politics…sounds quite sinister to me. Ask yourself
whether Badiou’s grasp of political philosophy and history is strong
enough to discard democracy so easily. I doubt it. His analysis of 9/11
and Afghanistan was just junk, for example.
Don’t make the mistake of thinking that low voter turnout in one
country or a bad education system in one country or the death of fine
art should somehow condemn the intricate and flexible foundation of
democracy, which is far richer than you give credit for, or realise.
Democracy is not a “hazy ideal” – I don’t think people who
support it actually see it so: it’s an imperfect system that,
nevertheless, adapts itself to different States more or less
effectively, whether that’s here or in Israel or South Africa or
(we’ll soon see) Afghanistan.
You want to avoid this, or assert that it can be avoided, by subsuming
it to 'Global Kapitol'.
So, now, how do you banish global capital? How do you banish global
capitalism? As far as I'm aware, it's called trade, and mankind would
require a collective lobotomy to abolishthe impulse to trade.
So iraqis have managed to vote for a government. this is good.
Turnout was high in shiite and kurdish areas. this is also good.
Turnout was low in sunni areas. sunnis seem to comprise most of the resistance. this is bad.
The resistance shows no sign of letting up. this is bad.
44 people died during the election. this is bad.
much of iraq still doesn't have consistent electricity or running water or other essential services. bad.
iraq is still occupied by a 150 000 strong american army. bad.
american companies still control most of the important resources (oil) and reconstruction contracts. bad.
bush gets to gloat. bad.
My point? Still a looong way to go, and really, elections that don't deal with all of the problems listed above are really not worth a hell of a lot. Things have moved into the next stage now, for sure, but whether this election is really going to have an overall positive effect remains to be seen.
But yeah, what happens when the shiite's consolidate their power in the new constitution and cut out the sunnis, effectively reversing the power roles from the saddam years? What happens if (when) the new iraqi gov't seeks stronger ties with iran? what happens if (when) the shiite's now in power tell america to leave (as some of them have been saying they will)? What happens if they don't? What happens when the new iraqi gov't tries to take control of iraqi national assets away from all the US companies currently running them? What happens if they don't?
Iraq is still quite fucked, i'm afraid. The joy in the faces of the iraqi's as they voted is inspiring and reminds me how much we take our own democracy for granted, but nevertheless i wonder how long untill the sheen of democracy starts to wear off for these people.
Side note: jesus have the news networks gone into full-on propaganda mode or what? They seem to be battling each other to see who can blow a bigger wad of patriotic jizz all over the screen. Anderson Cooper nearly broke my remote control.
Turnout was high in shiite and kurdish areas. this is also good.
Turnout was low in sunni areas. sunnis seem to comprise most of the resistance. this is bad.
The resistance shows no sign of letting up. this is bad.
44 people died during the election. this is bad.
much of iraq still doesn't have consistent electricity or running water or other essential services. bad.
iraq is still occupied by a 150 000 strong american army. bad.
american companies still control most of the important resources (oil) and reconstruction contracts. bad.
bush gets to gloat. bad.
My point? Still a looong way to go, and really, elections that don't deal with all of the problems listed above are really not worth a hell of a lot. Things have moved into the next stage now, for sure, but whether this election is really going to have an overall positive effect remains to be seen.
But yeah, what happens when the shiite's consolidate their power in the new constitution and cut out the sunnis, effectively reversing the power roles from the saddam years? What happens if (when) the new iraqi gov't seeks stronger ties with iran? what happens if (when) the shiite's now in power tell america to leave (as some of them have been saying they will)? What happens if they don't? What happens when the new iraqi gov't tries to take control of iraqi national assets away from all the US companies currently running them? What happens if they don't?
Iraq is still quite fucked, i'm afraid. The joy in the faces of the iraqi's as they voted is inspiring and reminds me how much we take our own democracy for granted, but nevertheless i wonder how long untill the sheen of democracy starts to wear off for these people.
Side note: jesus have the news networks gone into full-on propaganda mode or what? They seem to be battling each other to see who can blow a bigger wad of patriotic jizz all over the screen. Anderson Cooper nearly broke my remote control.
k-punk
Spectres of Mark
oliver craner said:
Yes, apologists for kapital always seem to discount kapital's 'actual tyranny' as actual tyranny. When the US throws ppl out of helicopters, shore up corrupt regimes (like, needless to say, Saddam's when it was more expedient to do so), illegally bomb children, that's not ACTUAL tyranny. It's Ok, it's a regrettable means to end, but it isn't ACTUAL tyranny, because it's done by GOOD people, people like us.
The inflexible law is to do with a tendency towards subordination to the necrotic structure of bourgeois representationalism. So there was a time when the working class thought it was worthwhile investing in the structures of your class, on the mistaken but understandable belief that they could change them. But 'you think you know how to play the game, but one day the game starts to play you' (Mark Stewart) - working class ppl realise, after defeat after painful defeat, compromise after inevitable compromise, that this silly parliamentary parlour game is not worth the effort and leave it to the Oxbridge debating team to have their inconsequent rhetoric contests, which, by design, change nothing.
Only if you defined political systems in terms of what the elite does.
Read some Foucault mate....
communism
I'm not banishing it, I'm saying it is a necessary evil. Nothing to be celebrated, and a sign that things are wrong, that ppl are oppressed and live in a fundamentally iniqutious system.
Plus one of the assumptions of your argument - that democracy brings peace - is ludicrous. The ethocide in Iraq, like that in the former Yugoslavia, is inevitable once you impose kapitalist parliamentarianism on ethnically divided populations.
Hmmm, can we substantiate our 'arguments' with reasons I wonder? I certainly wasn't citing Badiou as an authority - that would be a fallacy - merely as an illustration of a pretty obvious point. I would suggest that only someone capable of the most absurd ideological contortions could deny that democracy has an innate tendency towards structural inertia, i.e. towards shoring up the existing order.
So it would seem. But could we have evidence for these assertions, perhaps? You realise of course that your arguments are structurally identical to those presented by corrupt state socialist regimes.... No, any ACTUAL example of really existing democracy cannot be taken as evidence against its IDEOLOGICAL purity.. The fact that ALL democracies end up as talking shops for the ideologues of kapital.. that's not allowed to count as evidence against the 'intricate and flexible' nature of 'real' democracy, which, as you say, is beyond the ken, outside the experience, of those of us not lucky enough to be in your class.
That's a straightforward fallacy, as you must be aware, like:
God is not an 'ideological construct' - I don't think people who have faith in Him see Him as such.
Why? How? Again, tell me what is POSITIVELY good about having a right to ratify the decisions of professional bureaucrats and rhetoricians?
No, no, I don't want to subsume anything under global kapital. It is global kapital that subsumes everything, with the assistance of kapitalist parliamentarianism.
Your experience of capitalism is obviously somewhat limited, and, since you have detailed knowledge of history, you are obviously somehow blinding yourself to its lessons. Trade has happened in all cultures, it is far from unique to capitalism. Capitalism is a system of anti-markets (Braudel/ De Landa). If you doubt that, think about Windows and $Bill Gates...
Having said all this...
K-punk: In that case, do we replace the democractic process with something else? And if so, how?
I do not see the democratic system as flawless - but I do not have the imagination to think up something else better.
Some minor comments:
The ethocide in Iraq, like that in the former Yugoslavia, is inevitable once you impose kapitalist parliamentarianism on ethnically divided populations.
Er, Switzerland, Belgium anyone...
Why? How? Again, tell me what is POSITIVELY good about having a right to ratify the decisions of professional bureaucrats and rhetoricians?
Winston Churchill might agree.
K-punk: In that case, do we replace the democractic process with something else? And if so, how?
I do not see the democratic system as flawless - but I do not have the imagination to think up something else better.
Some minor comments:
The ethocide in Iraq, like that in the former Yugoslavia, is inevitable once you impose kapitalist parliamentarianism on ethnically divided populations.
Er, Switzerland, Belgium anyone...
Why? How? Again, tell me what is POSITIVELY good about having a right to ratify the decisions of professional bureaucrats and rhetoricians?
Winston Churchill might agree.
O
Omaar
Guest
"An election cannot be legitimate when it is conducted under foreign military occupation; when the country is nominally ruled by, and the election will be officially run by, a puppet government put and kept in place by the occupying army and the election will be under the ultimate control of the occupying army; when war is raging extensively enough to prevent participation by much of the population; and when the election is designed to choose a new assembly responsible for drafting a constitution and selecting a government that will continue to function under the conditions of military occupation."? (Bennis, 'Iraq's Elections,' Institute for Policy Studies, December 20, 2004)
"To understand “what freedom involves” let us first understand what it does not involve. The vote today is not a vote on how to manage and distribute the country’s vast resources, on how to go about bringing the occupying power to justice for unremitting war crimes, or even on whether to continue to host an army that continues to rape its lands and murder its citizens. “Democracy at its most basic and emotionally powerful,” as the Washington Post called it, instead means choosing from a list of unknown names. "
from Democracy in Iraq
Our local newspaper headline is calling it as "A Vote for the Children" ?!
"To understand “what freedom involves” let us first understand what it does not involve. The vote today is not a vote on how to manage and distribute the country’s vast resources, on how to go about bringing the occupying power to justice for unremitting war crimes, or even on whether to continue to host an army that continues to rape its lands and murder its citizens. “Democracy at its most basic and emotionally powerful,” as the Washington Post called it, instead means choosing from a list of unknown names. "
from Democracy in Iraq
Our local newspaper headline is calling it as "A Vote for the Children" ?!
k-punk
Spectres of Mark
John Simpson, tonight, on Newsnight (paraphrase):
Talks to camera as if addressing five year olds
'People in Iraq WEREN'T ALLOWED to identify themselves ethnically. They had to think of themselves as IRAQIS. And that's how some people still see themselves here. But now they have the opportunity to vote ETHNICALLY. I don't know where this will lead...'
Talks to camera as if addressing five year olds
'People in Iraq WEREN'T ALLOWED to identify themselves ethnically. They had to think of themselves as IRAQIS. And that's how some people still see themselves here. But now they have the opportunity to vote ETHNICALLY. I don't know where this will lead...'
Global communism is something better.
And what do we mean by "communism" here in regard to the management of the political aims of differing interest groups?
K-punk's basic beef with democracy seems to be its susceptibility to control by small, self-perpetuating cliques (elites). How does communism differ in this? What in its make-up prevents this from occurring?
And what do we mean by "communism" here in regard to the management of the political aims of differing interest groups?
K-punk's basic beef with democracy seems to be its susceptibility to control by small, self-perpetuating cliques (elites). How does communism differ in this? What in its make-up prevents this from occurring?
k-punk
Spectres of Mark
These are obviously massive questions. Nothing could be more important. They need to be carefully untangled (and not by me at a time i shd be asleep ;-) ) ...
But surely the slightly facetious point is that it wouldn't be communism by defintion if it involved control by a small elite?
But surely the slightly facetious point is that it wouldn't be communism by defintion if it involved control by a small elite?
luka
Well-known member
i'm in sympathy with oliver because he's taking a pragmatic view as opposed to an idealouge's view. global communism doesn't exist. it's as real as the second coming of christ and the building of jerusalem here on earth. an ideal world may look like global communism, it may look like willy wonka's chocolate factory. it's academic, it won't happen. in comparison to actually existing or historical political systems parlimentary democracy has its merits. i don't think oliver;s point about freedoms can be easily dismissed. you can write and say what you want. it beats afghanistan under the taliban. it beats russia under stalin. it beats feudal europe. it even beats today's china. i don't see why, if we're talking about 'ACTUAL examples of really existing democracy' we can't talk about communism as it existed in the USSR or in China under Mao. why we can't talk about gulags and cultural revolutions as opposed to your vision of communism in its pure state. if you had to choose a system to live under you'd probably go for parliamentry democracy every time. you're unlikely to simply 'disappear' becasue you insulted the prime minister's wife. it's not much, but it's something.
if it's legitimate to tell people to 'read foucault mate' it's also legitimate to say
read conrad mate, read dostoyevsky. the books are more entertaining anyway, they've got storys and the prose is better.
i agree that oliver brushes sins committed in the name of democracy under the carpet.
democracy may well be nothing but a hazy ideal, like justice or freedom or equality. they are banners and people who march under those banners have acheived things which seem to me to be worth acheiving. they continue to fight for things which seem to me to be worth fighting for. racism and discrimination didn't disappear with the abolition of slavery. sexism and discrimination didn't disappear when women were given the vote. continuing inequality doesn't negate those acheivements. oliver is saying, iraq is fucked despite the fall of sadaam and the introduction of democratic elections. that doesn't mean we shouldn't celebrate the fall of saddaam and the democratic elections. small victories are worth celebrating, and in the absence of willy wonkas chocolate factory and the birth of the ideal world, they are the only things worth celebrating.
'The inflexible law is to do with a tendency towards subordination to the necrotic structure of bourgeois representationalism.'
this is the worst sentence ever written.
if it's legitimate to tell people to 'read foucault mate' it's also legitimate to say
read conrad mate, read dostoyevsky. the books are more entertaining anyway, they've got storys and the prose is better.
i agree that oliver brushes sins committed in the name of democracy under the carpet.
democracy may well be nothing but a hazy ideal, like justice or freedom or equality. they are banners and people who march under those banners have acheived things which seem to me to be worth acheiving. they continue to fight for things which seem to me to be worth fighting for. racism and discrimination didn't disappear with the abolition of slavery. sexism and discrimination didn't disappear when women were given the vote. continuing inequality doesn't negate those acheivements. oliver is saying, iraq is fucked despite the fall of sadaam and the introduction of democratic elections. that doesn't mean we shouldn't celebrate the fall of saddaam and the democratic elections. small victories are worth celebrating, and in the absence of willy wonkas chocolate factory and the birth of the ideal world, they are the only things worth celebrating.
'The inflexible law is to do with a tendency towards subordination to the necrotic structure of bourgeois representationalism.'
this is the worst sentence ever written.