Monday, April 05, 2004
The rule of law, and Islamic clerics
America needs to arrest Muqtada al-Sadr. Iraq is facing a new reality. After 30 years of living under the absolute rule of single man, Iraqis are now trying to figure out what makes sense from a political standpoint. Shiites are trying to navigate a line between secular rule and religious rule. Sistani, for all his flaws, seems to understand that there MUST be some divide between state and religion, even if the divide is not as firm as most Western nations would find acceptable.
al-Sadr, however, seems to think that religious rule matters more than secular rule. Unfortunately, as the experience in Iran has demonstrated, religious rule translates into the desires of RELIGIOUS leaders, not the needs and wants of the general population. That's always been the problem with religious leaders pretending to speak for God. They no more speak for God than you or I. Unfortunately, lots of their followers seem to think they do, and if cult leaders are any indication, that is VERY dangerous.
To a certain degree, it's understandable that people might be lead down such a path after so little experience with self rule (or self-expression). Heck, it might be an expression of simple habit. You follow a leader for 30 years absolutely, so it makes a lot of sense to transfer that blind devotion to the next person who claims to have all the answers. Shiites might not have liked Saddam, but then again, they are VERY accustomed to having one person call the shots. There is comfort in certainty. Millions mourned when Stalin and Mao died, and millions had personal experience of their predations.
That doesn't mean, however, that it is right to let them walk that path. America, right or wrong, is now responsible for building a democracy out of a country with practically no experience of it. Having a religious leader inciting open rebellion, ignoring the will of EVERYONE ELSE in Iraq, isn't acceptable.
There is risk in confronting a Shiite leader head-on, even if he only speaks for a minority. Unfortunately, there is GREATER risk in letting him continue to incite his followers to resist America. Iraq isn't ready for America's departure, and al-Sadr knows it. Chaos and anarchy is fertile ground for dictatorship, and I suggest that (and a desire to confront Sistani's dominance) has more to do with current practices.
America needs to arrest Muqtada al-Sadr. Iraq is facing a new reality. After 30 years of living under the absolute rule of single man, Iraqis are now trying to figure out what makes sense from a political standpoint. Shiites are trying to navigate a line between secular rule and religious rule. Sistani, for all his flaws, seems to understand that there MUST be some divide between state and religion, even if the divide is not as firm as most Western nations would find acceptable.
al-Sadr, however, seems to think that religious rule matters more than secular rule. Unfortunately, as the experience in Iran has demonstrated, religious rule translates into the desires of RELIGIOUS leaders, not the needs and wants of the general population. That's always been the problem with religious leaders pretending to speak for God. They no more speak for God than you or I. Unfortunately, lots of their followers seem to think they do, and if cult leaders are any indication, that is VERY dangerous.
To a certain degree, it's understandable that people might be lead down such a path after so little experience with self rule (or self-expression). Heck, it might be an expression of simple habit. You follow a leader for 30 years absolutely, so it makes a lot of sense to transfer that blind devotion to the next person who claims to have all the answers. Shiites might not have liked Saddam, but then again, they are VERY accustomed to having one person call the shots. There is comfort in certainty. Millions mourned when Stalin and Mao died, and millions had personal experience of their predations.
That doesn't mean, however, that it is right to let them walk that path. America, right or wrong, is now responsible for building a democracy out of a country with practically no experience of it. Having a religious leader inciting open rebellion, ignoring the will of EVERYONE ELSE in Iraq, isn't acceptable.
There is risk in confronting a Shiite leader head-on, even if he only speaks for a minority. Unfortunately, there is GREATER risk in letting him continue to incite his followers to resist America. Iraq isn't ready for America's departure, and al-Sadr knows it. Chaos and anarchy is fertile ground for dictatorship, and I suggest that (and a desire to confront Sistani's dominance) has more to do with current practices.
