Competition in Iraq -Updated


A very interesting paper from the Carnagie Endowment, even if I don't agree with the conclusions
I took some time over the last few days to look over this report from the Carnegie Endowment.

While I can appreciate the author's concern about Iraq, I think she is overlooking the benefits of decentralized power. It was true in the early days of the United States, and it is true today in the "Red State/Blue State" division.

Maybe it takes a libertarian to appreciate the irony.

Competition encourages honesty.

Competing factions and competing regions are more likely to watch their rivals carefully. This keeps any one faction from growing too powerful.

Except for the expanding government faction, which becomes a power unto itself and has no real rivals. But that is another entry.

Take our own situation in the United States. We have a war President who isn't above using any tool he can to accomplish his aims. We have a Republican Party largely unused to being "in charge" and only too willing to sacrifice principle for immediate power. And we have a Democratic Party circling the edge, looking for their chance to leap in and seize control. Add to that a bunch of unelected bureaucrats whose only real purpose is to expand their own power/influence no matter who gets elected. Now out of all that mess, who is looking out for the American people?

No one.

Oh, they will tell you they are. But the Republicans think it is only a crime if they get caught. The Democrats think it is only a crime if the Republicans do it. The bureaucrats don't necessarily believe the law applies to them all the time. And the President is juggling at least a dozen major duties, some of which are plain illegal.

That would be true no matter who was in office.

Ideally, we would have very little government, and that answerable to the people. But barring that (because of the "Gentlemen's Agreement" the two major parties made long ago), the best the people can hope for is stalemate of competing interests.

At least that keeps the government at bay for a while.

Iraq's best hope for continued freedom is all those factions competing. That way, no single side can dominate.

Hat tip to Juliaki.

UPDATE - The Associated Press reports something interesting. Scroll down a bit.

Al-Dulaimi predicted Friday that the Shiite religious parties will be unable to put together a government even though they are widely expected to hold the largest number of seats and thus have the first chance at forming a coalition.

His optimism remains to be seen, however. Shiites account for about 60 percent of the country's 27 million people, compared to 20 percent for Sunni Arabs, and turnout in the Shiite heartland of southern and central Iraq was reported high.

Jawad al-Maliki, a prominent Shiite legislator with the United Iraqi Alliance, said there was "no doubt that initial results show that we will be the strong bloc," but he conceded a coalition would probably be required.

"We would like to participate with our Sunni brothers and form a national unity government. We have been waiting for them," he said. "We welcome forging an alliance with them."

Not only does competition encourage honesty, but it looks like it moderates the excesses of all factions too.

Good news I would say.

— NeoWayland

Posted: Mon - December 19, 2005 at 05:35 AM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved