And Following Up On Iraq

George Bush's grand success story continues.

Back here, we have still more horrors oozing forth from the cesspool of Iraq's occupation.

What kind of arrogance does it take to believe that you can impose democracy and civil freedom on a society at gunpoint? A brief examination of British history shows that there is a long period of societal adaptation required for "western style" democracy to emerge.

In 1215, The Magna Carta was signed by King John, limiting the powers of the Monarchy considerably.

Still, over the next few hundred years, the Parliament remained more of an advisory board to the throne, rather than holding the reins of power. The notion of Parliamentary Sovereignty didn't take hold in Britain for several centuries after the signing of the Magna Carta.

What in the world makes BushCo think that they can impose democracy upon a society that clearly isn't ready for it? More to the point, it is the height of arrogance to assume that democracy in the Middle East should take on "the same form" as the United States or Britain implements. Governments exist as a reflection of the cultural norms in which they occur. Looking around the Middle East, we see a few "budding democracies" starting to emerge. There are also significant numbers of monarchies and dictatorships. While I am not going to say that the latter are necessarily benevolent, it is incumbent upon any observer to recognize that the society which these structures govern may well not be ready for the kind of civil law and rights regime that democracy requires in order to flourish.