Jaafari – not yet:
AP reports today: Shiite leaders fail to agree on prime minister, will hold secret ballot
BAGHDAD, Iraq – Leaders of the Shiite political alliance that won Iraq’s election failed to agree on a single nominee for prime minister Wednesday, with the two candidates insisting on a vote by the alliance’s 140 parliamentarians, officials said.
After meeting for hours with Shiite cleric and politician Abdel-Aziz al-Hakim, members of the United Iraqi Alliance agreed to hold a secret ballot to choose between two former exiles, Ibrahim al-Jaafari and Ahmad Chalabi, said Ali Hashim al-Youshaa, an alliance leader who attended the meetings. The vote is expected Friday.
What can effect the vote:
– Money (lots of bribes will flow between today and Friday)
– Sistani
Does Negroponte really has so little control that the choice for the Iraqi prime minister is now between an Iranian spy and an Iranian cleric?
If Chalabi is elected, I wouldn’t suspect massive bribery; I would rather take it as the ultimate confirmation he’s been an Iranian asset since years.
If it comes to what Billmon and pretty every religious minority in Iraq fear, I’d like to hear Bush explaining how it’ll be better than Saddam.
Posted by: Clueless Joe | Feb 16 2005 21:15 utc | 2
Maybe I totally misread this, but in some way Billmon is pointing out that Bush does not act in U.S. interest, i.e. does not get the right people “elected” in Iraq.
This, I think, is wrong for a progressive view. How would a progressive react if, in a real election, the majority in Iraq would vote for an Islamic constitution with all it´s consequences?
There is this twist somehow in the progressive thought between a pure democracy –the majority rules– and a constitutional majority –the majority may rule ONLY in a restricting frame of certain constitutional guaranteed rights to minorities-.
This very critical distinguished difference seems to me neglected on the left and on the right, even though both cry for it in the case they are the minority.
Now who is able and consistent enough to define a restricting frame of certain constitutional guaranteed rights. Are our western ideas right in this?
Could there be other better frames? Is our ten commendments based constitutional view right? Is a Islamic view better is Buddist view better
I don´t know, I am just questioning.
b
The ideal of democracy that at least takes a stab at answering your question is Madison’s conception as explained by Cass Sunstein in his Partial Constitution:
The prohibition of naked preferences therefore underlies a wide range of constitutional provisions. The prohibition is connected with the original idea that government must be responsive to something other than private pressure, and with the associated notion that politics is not the reconciling of given interests but instead the product of some form of deliberation about the public good. As it operates in current constitutional law, the prohibition of naked preferences-like Madison’s approach to the problem of factionalism-focuses on the motivations of legislators, not of their constituents. The prohibition therefore embodies a particular conception of representation. Under that conception, the task of legislators is not to respond to private pressure but instead to select values through deliberation and debate.
“Deliberative democracy” and “civic virtue” in this formulation of republicanism seeks to insulate the political process (3 branches of government and media as well when the political speech is concerned) from private power ($).
Another classic treatment of deliberative democracy comes from Frank I. Michelman, The Supreme Court, 1985 Term – Foreword: Traces of Self-Government, 100 HARV. L. REV. 4 (1986). Also, Cass R. Sunstein, Interest Groups in American Public Law, 38 STAN. L. REV. 29 (1985).
But, you’re right b, maybe we just need a benevolent dictator.
Posted by: slothrop | Feb 16 2005 22:34 utc | 4
that word -‘democracy’ – has become so degraded it has little or no meaning for me, at all jurisprudentially, conceptually or concretely
i watch a world conceived by butchers & orders followed by errand boys who slime their way up & down the pole dancing conception of the american dream
what is that dream – except the rule by those who have too much already at the expense of those who have next to nothing, who are hidden away from any source of information & whose lives & deaths are of no consequence for those living in the ‘democratic’ west
day by day – it becomes almost impossible to bare the tones of sordid cruelt that are enunciated on the hour every hour – even here in france – our sources of information – have become so much less than they were even ten years ago – i’m tired of listening to their s&anctimonious commentaries of this & that & absolutely nothing
their ‘expertise’ is nothing other than a crude self interest masked in a humanism that cares nothing at all for the people in reality & in abstract
the ‘people’ are there to provide dramatic relief on ‘reality shows’ to show in profound detail how degrade we have become
there is neither grâce, certainly little that is sacred & no holiness whatsoever – there is of course the mysticism of gangsters – as there was for that sanskrit loving scholar heinrich himmler & also in the peace loving earth shattering robert oppenheimer who also knew a thing or two about sanskrit
& if we rid these ancient texts in sanskrit – we understand that cruelty for an elite is a part of the privilege
dark as i am – i remain both a dialectial & historical materialist – perhaps i am the last of their number – & in this conception – those who make our days hells today will pay sometime tommorrow
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Feb 16 2005 22:50 utc | 5
let’s all not pretend the occupation has anything to do w/ democracy.
if it did then a democratically elected iraq could ask us to leave, and we would. now that’s not going to happen. i’m sure a benevolent dictator would work fine for bush, as long as that dictator knew who’s ass to kiss.
Posted by: annie | Feb 16 2005 22:52 utc | 6
Yeah most of us seem to be still struggling to support all that brainwashing we experienced since toddlerhood. I think it is impossible to sift it all out and start over with the task of making sense of power, leadership, etc.
The first task now is to take ALL info provided by the govt and MSM as pure bullshit, because it is. Second task is to live in harmony with our contemporaries while absolutely rejecting the above-mentioned bullshit. This is not at all easy; I know this first-hand even though I tend to be a loner and avoid political discussion except in the privacy of my home. (Or here)
I accept no rule, no law, no convention at face value. Not even standard social behavior. Now it all has to be run through my validity confirmation process; that takes time and effort and plenty of the stuff fails the new tests. It is a long slow process of reinventing civility. Meanwhile, one floats in a thick soup of baseless uncertainty, unable to plan for the future with any confidence whatsoever.
Hanging around the Moon helps a lot, adds to efficiency, broadens insight but it is really not enough in the end, perhaps because we have so little power. How many of your “elected” legislators care what you think? For me the answer is none.
As I’ve said before, this is all quite interesting to watch and experience, and I feel blessed with the advantage of being alive now for that. The thing that galls me most is seeing these mofos proceeding merrily along in their plan to conquer, kill and decimate – successfully with no effective opposition.
[/end rant]
Posted by: rapt | Feb 16 2005 23:32 utc | 8
rgiap, annie
Democracy “means” something, even for Iraq, even for America. I think it is interesting that someone like Madison would recognize the problems of capitalist democracy at the dawn of bourgeois civilization. I mean, it’s possible to get democracy right, even for the stray historical materialist.
But, yeah, the greatness of humanity to be found in this or that demo theory is now made a pitiable joke by u.s. in Iraq and at home.
Posted by: slothrop | Feb 16 2005 23:40 utc | 9
B: There’s some pundit who said it was good that Sistani’s guys were at 49% since it would force them to compromise is quite right with how democracies can really work. Actually, I agree with this. If we use plain majority rule, meaning 51% can fuck the 49%, then you may end up with Auschwitz, and that would be consistent with the essence of the system. Democracy shouldn’t mean dictatorship of the majority – something Jafaari seems very fond of apparently.
That said, the trick is that it’s hard to maintain, because if you actually have a true majority, notably an ethnic one, there is no way in the very long run to avoid their tyranny. They’ll end up using their majority to change some laws, and after some time even the checks and balances or even the Constitution which originally made sure minorities wouldn’t be hurt will get changed or dumped, until the only law is simple majority rule.
Basically, from observations and experiences, I’d say that if you want a democracy to work, as far as ethnies/languages/political (and religions for countries that aren’t very deeply and largely secular) parties are concerned, the only way for it to work is that no group has an absolute majority, so that a coalition of others can block any power grab. I’d even say it’d be better if no group had more than 1/3 of the people. This is why EU could work; the fools who feared a German 4th Reich are stupid; Germans, even if they wanted to, couldn’t impose their rule on Europe all by themselves, not with barely 25% of the population. So, a democracy can last only if you have a very homogeneous population with barely any minority (say, all minorities together making something like 5%, a point at which they may be basically irrelevant), or you have a huge variety of minorities, with no one having the majority, but just a plurality.
Of course, I don’t think democracy is a goal in itself. Political regimes are just means to achieve goals (but as you suggested, it may not be very leftistically correct).
Posted by: Clueless Joe | Feb 16 2005 23:57 utc | 10
Greenspan on SS: “It is risky doing nothing.”
Why won’t this guy drop dead or go away and write those forewards to new eds. of Ayn Rand books?
Posted by: slothrop | Feb 17 2005 0:01 utc | 11
@CJ: “Democracy shouldn’t mean dictatorship of the majority.”
Gee. Sounds like home.
Posted by: beq | Feb 17 2005 0:19 utc | 12
ô slothrop
greenspan was there when people were interpreting signs in the cave – he has always been there – he was there before time began – he is a kabbalist i imagine – seduced & doomed by numbers – he has become one – or numbers less than that
greenspan is almost the central reason why i did not take up a career in mathematics & wanted to be as far away from numbers as i could possibly be
even marx’s theory of surplus value gives me the shivers
i think of jérôme in his bank with all those numbers & i orry for him
statisticians send me to sorrowful spots somewhere near the sun where icarus fell
edward teller & johnny neumann sometimes appear in my nightmares counting kilotonnnes
ô slothrop – do me this one favour -do not mentioon greenspan or i shall never sleep
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Feb 17 2005 0:20 utc | 13
On NewsHour just now: Gwen (not laughing loudly): “with us to discuss the Kyoto protocol: Samuel Thermstrom, environmental issues scholar from the American Enterprise Institute…”
Posted by: slothrop | Feb 17 2005 1:22 utc | 15
remembereringgiap
you comments about numbers and mathematics calls to mind Audens poem numbers and faces
Lovers of small number go benignly potty,
Believe all tales are thirteen chapters long,
Have animal doubles, carry pentagrams,
Are Millerites, Baconians, Flat-Earth-Men.
Lovers of Big numbers go horridly mad,
Would have the Swiss abolished, all of us
Well purged, somatotyped, baptized, taught baseball:
They empty bars, spoil parties, run for Congress.
this seems to sum up the double articlation of those who rule us
Posted by: rab d | Feb 17 2005 2:54 utc | 16
rapt,
I’m right there with you. 😉 It’s a sometimes lonely post, like the Maytag repairman, but someone’s got to do it. We must build for ourselves … each… alternative ways to live and be. Time to stop dragging those boulders up the sides of the pharoahs’ pyramids. They can’t really do what they do with our our “cooperation”. With enough non-compliance the machine ka-chunks its last in the time it should … the things I do to keep it from falling apart, the longer the madness goes on. I feel this down beyond my bones to the DNA level, or so it seems sometimes.
Posted by: Kate_Storm | Feb 17 2005 6:25 utc | 17
rapt,
you articulate my feelings to a T.
I want to matter more to my reps too…
but I think maybe Buddha had a good handle on it – he left a royal family and decided to work on himself till he actually changed.
The thing I take from Gannongate is that even at the top everyone is fucked. For me, actually being of use to others is wholly a matter of healing and enlightening myself. I can’t prevent nuclear holocaust – it may happen. Maybe not. But hell is other people, and I find that all that brainwashing since toddlerhood has made me other people – and I cannot avoid them so long as I avert my eyes and try to convince myself that I am all me.
This is not actually solipsistic – every time I become myself a little bit more certainly, I become a better teacher, better writer, better lover, better friend and better businessman. I know that to insist on acting like a human being can get you killed, but I am working on settling for nothing less than being a human being. Thanks for the cameraderie.
Posted by: Citizen | Feb 17 2005 8:09 utc | 18
rapt:
Well said, my sentiments also.
R’Giap:
Dying men draw numbers in the air,
Dream to conquer little bits of time.
Scuffle with the crowd to get their share,
Fall behind their little bits of time.
Colors of the Sun
Jackson Browne
Posted by: lonesomeG | Feb 18 2005 22:27 utc | 20