Well in the case of Iraq, you have the problem of Sharia law. Muslims tend to want to establish theocracies by default. That's the problem they're having with Afghanistan right now. They want to execute a Christian convert because converting away from Islam, according to Sharia law, is punishable by death. This, after the country is "liberated" from the Taliban. Keep in mind this is actually against the new country's constitution, but the country's constitution contradicts the Koran, so you have a bit of a church/state problem that rather eclipses the whining you hear about in the US. There's a big difference between wanting to have a cross on your desk if you happen to work at a government office and happen to be Christian, and using judicial authority to enforce the laws of your religion. Afghanistan and Iraq are interesting experiments in that democracy and western "Free Will" principles of living are meeting head on with Islamic cultures. Can democracy survive Islam, and vice-versa? That's the question I'm curious about, assuming Iraq doesn't spiral completely out of control.
There are many forms of undesirable government, economics, and what have you. The question is, which kind do the people want? What gives them the most personal freedom and quality of life? What's fair, and oppresses the least? What keeps the power hungry in check? McDeth is right in that it is human nature that unhinges every idealist's dreams. Communism works very well on paper, but historically, in practice, it's failed dismally and always resulted with tyrannical, authoritarian regimes being in control instead of the people.
|
