Should Iraq Be Democratized?

[miko2d]

Good article on democracy and economics.

Should Iraq Be Democratized?

Economists at the University of Freiberg, like Wilhelm Roepke and Ludwig Erhard, implemented free-market reforms after attaining posts in the interim government. In the summer of 1948, German inflation ceased, price controls disappeared or became ineffective, taxes fell and the tax code became simpler and flatter.

These reforms yielded excellent results. The barter system collapsed as people returned to monetary exchange. Absenteeism fell from 9.5 hours a week (May 1948) to 4.3 hours per week (October 1948). Production was at 51% of 1936 levels in June 1948. By December it rose to 78%—a 50% increase in a few months. Per capita productivity tripled following these reforms.

As for the Marshall program, this aid amounted to only 2 billion through 1954. Even at its peak it was less than 5% of German G.D.P. Reparations amounted to over 1 billion, thus negating most Marshall aid. Germany did avoid having to fund its' own national defense during these years. However, the Allies charged post-war Germany 2.4 billion dollars for defense. The German economic revival derived from radical privatization and deregulation, not the Marshall plan. Free-market reforms propelled West Germany into the prosperity and rapid development that it enjoyed during the 50's and early sixties.

What would have happened if West Germany had adopted democracy early on? The Marshall plan would have been the same, but not the Erhard/Roepke plan. The social democratic party opposed the Erhard/Roepke reforms. Party representatives, like Kreyssig, argued that price decontrol and currency reform would not work. The socialists in Germany eventually succeeded in reinstituting extensive intervention into the German economy, though not as much as under Hitler.

It is quite obvious that a nation that focuses on transferring wealth among its' citizens must be poor relative to nations that focus on producing wealth. There is no doubt that the U.S. government has respected property rights better than most other countries in history. It is also the case that many special interests use the U.S. government to transfer wealth from those who have earned it. While the exact reasons remain unclear, some democracies manage to avoid becoming poverty ridden transfer states, while others manage to fend off transfers well enough to enable continued development. What reasons do we have to believe that Iraq will follow the example of the U.S., rather than that of India?

Iraq is a poor nation with no prior experience with free markets. The Iraqi people will therefore not benefit from an entrenched system of property rights and free enterprise. Of course, this does not mean that the Iraqis cannot choose to adopt free markets, but why should we expect them to? Have the Iraqi people learned about the efficiency of free markets? Do they appreciate the natural rights of man to life, liberty, and property?

Most governments in history have been nondemocratic. Some of these nondemocratic governments have worked well. Recent experiences with Hong Kong, West Germany, and Japan have shown that people who survive war and escape tyranny can benefit from a lack of democracy. Since the results of adopting democracy are at least in question, and the likely requisites for success under democracy seem in doubt with Iraq, Bush and Blair would be wise to consider delaying their plans for democratizing Iraq. It might be better for the Iraqis to experience free enterprise first and democracy later.

 miko

[john9001]

miko, you are confusing democracy (small d ) with "The Social Democratic Party" a political party that would like a authoritarian govt, like the old USSR, with price controls etc etc.

the only good thing is miko has absolutely no control over international policy.



PS. "french toast' has been renamed "french are toast", as in "i would like a order of french are toast."

[Syzygyone]

MIko;

I know you didn't write that article but that you posted it is to your credit.  But, I have some questions.

Germany and Japan are not democracies?  What kind of governments are they?.  Aren't those government's based upon elected representatives?  Don't they form coalitions to elect Prime Ministers much like the UK. I don't think that democracy needs to be american democracy.  

What I do wish for Iraq is that they too be allowed to benefit from a market economy.  That they have shops that sell, and people that buy, they already have the basics of supply and demand.  What they need to replace are the distributors, the wholesalers, etc.  

I was once told by an Austrian Philosophy Professor that in Soviet Russia, when plots of land were parceled out for peasants to grow their own food, what happend was that they quickly saw that some were better at growing things, some were better at distributing things, etc.  So, they got together and the ones that needed help "paid" the ones that were good farmers to farm their plot.  They were paid in a percentage of the food from that plot.  Sounds like free enterprise to me.  

Iraq is an advanced society with many educated people.  They have been oppressed for several decades by a totalitarian regime that crushed anything that could threaten it.  Free enterprise makes for monied people, and that threatened the regime.

I think they will have some form of democracy and it may be very very different from other wesern democracies.  i.e., Turkey is largely muslim and has a democracy very different from the U.S.   My bet is that, when given the chance, they will also adopt some form of free enterprise economy and then will form some type of democracy because free enterpise can only truly survive and flourish in a democratic regime.

[Wlfgng]

maybe it should be worded:     CAN iraq be democratized?

[Mini D]

I've not heard anyone say that we are installing an American style of government in Iraq.  Pretty much everyone agrees that it wouldn't work.

I'm just curious to see what happens in regards to a region with Kurds, Shiites and whatever other race/sect is at feudal odds with another.

MiniD

[-dead-]

Technically speaking, true democracy in Iraq is impossible. It has just been amply demonstrated that if the US government doesn't approve of the Iraqis' election choice, the US will depose that government.

[GRUNHERZ]

Miko is asking how quickly iraq should be democratrized. Post war germany was intially run by the US military and they implemente various reforms that set the stage for a succesful long term market system and long term democracy.

My biggest fear is that we will pack up and leave too soonwithout doing the right things to ensure iraq will be stable market democracy in 10 years time. Unfortunately I think this could happend because everyone wants the USA out soon and we all know the UN will fail as it always does and nobody will trust russia/france/germany to make iraq a democracy. Only america can do this.

For example. Lets say the USA oversees iraqi administtrsation of oil sales and uses the proceeds to rebuld and stabiolize iraq to make sure the country is ok.  This is precisely the right thing to do and the only logical choice becuse free market ownership of the oil by irqi companies is unlikely in the short term and the money is need nationally to rebuild and buy food and medicine. But the second this happends blitz and the usa haters will jum all over us for STEALING THE OIL!!! Of cousres they will again propose no other solution to help the iraqi people rebulid but they wont an opportunty to bash the USA..

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by -dead-
Technically speaking, true democracy in Iraq is impossible. It has just been amply demonstrated that if the US government doesn't approve of the Iraqis' election choice, the US will depose that government.

Wht does this mean? Can you cite examples? Give evidence? Do you expect that democracy will happened in two weeks after enduring 25 years of dictaorship?  I know what you want you want another weimar so that in 20 years iraq is a nutcase country again and you can go on some BBS and spout how you knew that the USA was evil and wrong all this time...

OMG Holy crap it just dawned on me, are you reffering to the recent saddam hussein 99% yes vote?

You cant be, not even you, right?

[BGBMAW]

MIKO I DIDNT READ ANY OF THIS CRAP..GIMME SOEM MORE tANK  sTORIES pLEASE:)


sALUTE
BiGB


StuPid totally tubular Caps Lok

[Gunthr]

good question

[Mini D]

The one thing that ww2 did for Germany was to highlight and train its people in their industrial/manufacturing capabilities.  German engineering and manufacturing blossomed during the war and the only thing that set them back was their defeat.  The specialized skillset was still there.  The bashing of the marshall plan makes the assumption that the money it received paled in comparison to the gross national product of Germany, though the Marshall plan was responsible for much of the equipment used to generate that GNP.

Iraq is a somewhat different situation.  Well... a drastically different situation.  It does not have the engineering and manufacturing skills that Germany had during its economic recovery.  Basically, the only hope is that someone comes in and infuses money without wanting much in return (except maybe oil).

Basically, the economic situation over there is somewhat bleak.  If these two gentlemen can figure out how to turn a near third world nation into a prospering industrial one, I'm sure everyone would be interested.  Right now, it seems as if most of the world is only concerned with their oil and how to make money (either for Iraq or themselves) from it.  This doesn't really do much to better the economy of the nation, though it will help greatly in rebuilding it.

Dunno... just like comparing Germany to Iraq in regards to "the Berlin wall"... I think this comparison is somewhat silly.  Germany built itself during the war.  It only had to be rebuilt afterwards.  Iraq still needs the initial construction.

MiniD

[Gunthr]

Good points, Mini D.  And that was a very interesting article Miko.

Islam and fundementalist Muslims are resistant to democratic concepts to the point of considering it to be a sin against Allah.  Nationalism is also a sin. They believe that no man or men should rule them, only Allah via the Qur'an and the scholars who interpret it.

I originally thought that since Iraq is considered "secular" that it was one of the better candidates for democracy. But there are a whole bunch of Muslim hardliners surrounding Iraq that consider Iraq to be Muslim land. Iraqis themselves, free from an Islamic apostate ruler and a secular government could snap back in a backlash into fundemental extremism, like the Taliban, if left alone.

I still think Iraq has a chance to eventually become democratic, but I think its gonna take a looong time. I'd be extremely happy for now if they got a healthy economy going, based on the free market.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by -dead-
Technically speaking, true democracy in Iraq is impossible. It has just been amply demonstrated that if the US government doesn't approve of the Iraqis' election choice, the US will depose that government.

As I remember it, the deposed leader of Iraq was installed in power thru assination and coup.  So to make the assertion that the US did not approve of the Iraqi's choice of their democratically elected government is an incorrect premise.

[-dead-]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Wht does this mean? Can you cite examples? Give evidence? Do you expect that democracy will happened in two weeks after enduring 25 years of dictaorship?

It means that the Iraqis will have to elect a government that the US government approves of.
Examples of US deposing/attempting to depose governments it doesn't approve of: The whole cold war deal, Panama, Chile, Nicaragua... the list is vast. In Iraq itself - the CIA is implicated in the assassination of the Iraqi prime minister General Abd-al-Karim Kassem (shortly after he helped start OPEC and announced he would nationalize the oil companies) this lead to a short bout of Baath party rule & a huge bloodbath of killing communists - whose names were supplied by the CIA. In 1968 the CIA covertly supported Baathist General Ahmed Hassan al-Bakrand's coup which meant that the Baath party regained power. The US was of course much more overt in overthrowing the Baath party and Saddam Hussein of course.
No, I don't expect democracy in two weeks. I reckon democracy in two decades would be pushing it for Iraq - the rivalries of powerful tribal, ethnic and religious groups will probably lead to instability, fragmentation into smaller states or, at worst, civil war if the democracy thing is pushed. If the democracy thing isn't pushed, it may well turn into an Iran-like theocracy run by shi'ites.

OMG Holy crap it just dawned on me, are you reffering to the recent saddam hussein 99% yes vote?
You cant be, not even you, right?

No. I was just stating what's been made fairly obvious - if the US doesn't like the new government it'll probably depose it - it doesn't matter much how they got it.

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
As I remember it, the deposed leader of Iraq was installed in power thru assination and coup. So to make the assertion that the US did not approve of the Iraqi's choice of their democratically elected government is an incorrect premise.

As I remember it, the coups and assassinations were US backed and/or funded (see above). I personally don't think it makes that much difference to the US government how the Iraqis get the government. But I'm willing to conceed it might (it's a much harder sell for a start)- hence I said "technically". However I say "technically" because even if your assumption is correct, I reckon the Iraqi's are going to be betting that it doesn't matter to the US government - after all, the US has funded/backed or just plain turned up and done it themselves for 3 major overthrows in Iraq. Each time the government was overthrown, the US government did not approve of that Iraqi government. Coincidence? Well it might be, but I don't think so. Operation Iraqi Freedom in my opinion just reinforces this message to Iraq: "Your country's government will only be allowed to operate if the US approves." But even that's a step up from Hussein, I suppose.

[GRUNHERZ]

No you did not say it woud PROBABLY depose it, you said:

It has just been amply demonstrated that if the US government doesn't approve of the Iraqis' election choice, the US will depose that government.

Seems to me you are just trying to weazel your way out of the stupidity of wht you said.