Democracy Without Authority: A Tree Without Roots

The U.S. must  recognize that its object is the creation of a strong Iraq, not simply the elimination of the insurgency.  This leads to a fundamental question when cannot go unanswered. What is strength? What makes a strong nation, strong and a weak, nation weak? In the previous article, it was stated that strength exists in two forms – in the eye of the beholder and in the will of the subject. The first form has already been explained. The second is the subject of this article.
Strength is not primarily a physical quality. It does not reside in the number of artillery shells or natural resources. History presents many examples of societies who achieved greatness despite material weakness. The strength of a nation, like that of an individual, originates from its will. Thus, we cannot judge Iraq’s condition through material factors alone. There is a danger that America will leave Iraq because the material factors are present - the insurgency is defeated, the government is representative, and the army is strong. Physically, the nation may look fit but, if it lacks the will, it is built on sand.
If will is the basis of strength, then it can only find expression through a head – a government. As the head must rule the heart, so must the government rule the people. This concept is called authority, and through its strength we can measure the strength of the nation’s will. This concept certainly goes against the U.S.  grain. We are a nation that wrestled ourselves from an authoritarian government, and we are shy to admit the brutal fact that central authority, rather than liberty and democracy, is the basis of strength. And authority cannot be given. Strong governments are not formed by people holding hands and agreeing to live happily ever after. The pedestal of every great government throughout history is covered with blood; the U.S. being one of the greatest, has a pedestal as blood red as any. Let us not forget that authority was not given to the U.S. but taken by force from the British, and the authority of the federal government was enhanced not by votes, but taken from the states through a violent struggle known as the Civil War. One has only to consult a Southerner to know that this is, in fact, what happened.
If the consolidation of authority will bring pain upon the population, it is a necessary pain. It is no less immoral to doom the people by continuing chaos and disorientation than it is to gain authority through force. The blind pursuit of democracy will be more harmful to the people of Iraq than a swift, forceful consolidation of central power.
At the same time, democracy must remain as the long-term goal. Many people, even Americans, believe that a democracy is not possible in Iraq because it has no history of representative government. This is a an incorrect  assessment. Both South Korea and Japan had no history of representative government before World War II, and yet they matured into vibrant democracies in a matter of decades. This was possible only because they consolidated authority before granting liberties. We often forget that Japan was ruled by Douglas MacArthur, and the first presidents of South Korea were dictators. Democracy must not be ruled out. It is without doubt, the Promised Land.
But a democracy, by its very definition, sacrifices decisiveness at the expense of continuity. What a dictator can accomplish with the stroke of a pen may be impossible for the head of state of a democracy. Thus Thomas Jefferson once said that more courage is necessary to lead a democracy than a dictatorship. But if the very survival of the democracy is in question, it cannot be saved democratically. In our own history, wartime presidents held near dictatorial powers when our survival was being threatened. Surely, the situation in Iraq is comparable for it is the very survival of Iraq that hangs in the balance. The more difficult the danger, and complex the problem is, the more authority must be concentrated in the hands of one individual, giving free reign to his imagination and foresight.
Only a strong executive can lead a nation of 150 tribes, each with their rivalries and loyalties. The rulers of Iraq understood the dynamics of tribal politics and maneuvered themselves into positions of power. They were all at once ruthless dictators, honest brokers, and skillful manipulators. When manipulation did not work, force usually did; thus many earned a reputation for tyranny. In Iraq, the government has no choice but to use manipulation and force to centralize authority. This cannot be achieved by a representative body, which will only provide a forum for chaos to ferment. One must conform to reality. Decisive action in response to rebellions cannot be taken by a body consisting of Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds. It can be taken only by an individual who recognizes the spark of revolt and snuffs it before it becomes a flame.
But democracy is not doomed simply because the nation is multi-ethnic. Both Lebanon and Singapore were democracies in divided nations. Lebanon is composed of Maronite Christians, and both Shiite and Sunni Muslims.Later, Palestinians adopted a system of government remarkably similar to that of present-day Iraq. This government admirably represented, more or less equally, the various groups at the expense of a strong central authority. Until the 1970’s, it was hailed as evidence that democracy could thrive in the driest desert. After that we have only to consult the Palestinians and the Syrians to know the results. Ousted from Jordan, the Palestinians escaped to Lebanon, which against its will, became a haven for foreign terrorists. Having sacrificed authority for fairness, Lebanon found itself infested with enemies and left without foreign help.
Can we take this same risk in Iraq? After all, Lebanon is still alive and remarkably healthy considering the tragedies it experienced. Lebanon borders only two nations; it can afford to be weak. Israel will not attack it unless it is attacked by the resident terrorists. Syria will not conquer it for fear of the United States and Israel. Iraq is not placed in this happy situation. Without the U.S. army, it can find no combination to defend itself against a strong, determined Iran. Unlike Lebanon, it cannot afford to sacrifice authority for the sake of fairness.
Looking to the east, however, it will find hope in the democracy of Singapore. This former British colony is composed of a ragtag motley group of Asians, each with their corresponding religions, including Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity. It did not sacrifice authority for fairness. For years it was ruled, often in a harsh manner, by Lee Kuan Yew, who took his fair share of criticism from the American “democric” police. It is now one of the most prosperous and vibrant states in Asia only because a central authority could force unity out of chaos. The lesson is clear. If we want Iraq to be strong, we must place authority before liberty. Democracy without authority is a tree without roots.