|
“My conclusion is that America is an open society, the
most successful, the most powerful in the world, that doesn’t
understand the first principle of an open society, namely that we
(the United States) may be wrong. And as long as we have that
position, we are not really qualified to propagate democracy all
over the world.” –
George Soros, billionaire political activist, on the
election in Iraq as quoted by Bloomberg News
I have read that quote at least a dozen times and still
have no idea what it means, at least not literally. I suspect the
truth is that Soros wants democracy to fail in Iraq for his own
political reasons but doesn’t have the guts to just say it.
Whatever one thinks of the war in Iraq and the United
States’ role in it, can we at least agree that a popularly elected
government is now their best hope? Probably not, unfortunately,
even though the alternatives all point to a future few would choose
for themselves even if they don’t seem to mind it for Iraq.
The polls have been closed only a few hours as I write
this but it looks like Soros will not get his wish. It is being
reported that about 60 percent of eligible Iraqis voted and the
violence was much lighter than many feared. Over 30 people were
reported killed not counting terrorists, which is sad enough but
hardly Armageddon.
Compare that to U.S. elections. Voter turnout for the
2004 presidential election was one of the highest in history, also
about 60 percent according to the Committee for the Study of the
American Electorate in Washington, DC. Most voters faced nothing
more frightening than bad weather, and though some folks like to
rant that “millions” were denied the right to vote they don’t seem
to be able to produce any victims for what I’m sure would be eager
news crews.
Despite the remarkable success of the Iraqi election, it
won’t take long for some to tag it a failure for reasons pretty much
the same reason as Soros’. Less than a day after the election,
questions were already being raised about its validity because of
the number of minority Sunni Muslims who heeded clerics’ calls to
boycott the election, yet that too is a choice.
Voters in any democracy have the right not to vote.
It’s too bad some Iraqis chose to exercise it and no doubt fear
played a role, but it no more invalidates the election than does the
traditionally tepid turnout in the United States. Cynics can still
take heart, though: If democracy truly takes hold in Iraq, Iraqis
may one day be as fat, happy, and jaded as Americans and stay home
if it rains.
The most galling notion is the suggestion that democracy
is being “forced” on Iraq by the United States. There’s no question
that Saddam went out by force, but democracy tends to open its own
doors.
Consider our own history. The United States was born
with no small help from one of the superpowers of the day, France.
The French used both their military and economic might to tip the
scales against Britain and many historians believe the American
Revolution would have been lost without it. Yet if any have
suggested democracy was forced on us by France it has slipped my
notice.
It is too soon to tell who won in Iraq but the losers
are clear. Terror lost, fear lost, boycotts lost, and George Soros
and his like-minded brethren lost. They’ll all be back for another
go, but I suspect they’ll find a democratic Iraq harder to tear down
than Saddam.
|
