Mark Shea posted a snide comment about this image of Iraqi Shiites demonstrating for speedier elections:
I had the following to say in the comments box, after seeing some of the less-than-pithy postings:
I hate to introduce something so vulgar as "facts" to this discussion, but here are a few:1. Most Iraqis are Shiites.
2. Despite that fact, most Iraqis do not like Iranians, despite Iran being the only other majority Shia nation.
3. Shiites have no problems with "graven images." Their brand of Islam is quasi-incarnational, in that they believe in the spiritual efficacy of natural objects, unlike, say, the Wahabbis, who are very anti-materialistic. Go into any Iraqi Shiite home and you will see at least one, and probably many, pictures of Hussein Ali, the founder of the Shia branch of Islam. You might even find, as I did in one family's home, that they have a picture of Jesus as the Good Shepherd.
4. There are fundamentalists and then there are fundamentalists. The majority of Iraqi Shiites are salt-of-the-earth types who simply want to harvest their dates or run their auto shop. They have very conservative religious views but they are not interested in an Islamic revolution, much less in exporting an Islamic revolution.
5. In all of the opinion polls conducted since the war, Iraqis have overwhelmingly indicated their preference for a secular government rather than an Islamic one. That Iraq is an Islamic country, and their secular law will likely reflect their religious values, is to be expected and even encouraged. It might be nice if our laws consistenly reflected our values -- perhaps that's an idea they could export to the U.S. I believe that idea -- the enshrinement of the majority's preference -- is part of what we call "democracy."
I found I liked the Shiites when I was among them, and Catholics have more in common with them than other branches of Islam. If I had more time, I'd write a long essay about it.
Mark Shea seems to be getting under everyone's skin lately.
Yeah, why not just give Shiites the whole show so they can payback the Sunnis for what they suffered under Saddam. Great idea.
And your alternative is...not allowing the majority to rule? Letting the Sunni crap all over the Shia the way they've been doing for half a millenium? Given the paucity of Shia-on-Sunni mass killings, even during the brief periods of anarchy during and after the war, I'd say the Shia have been pretty good sports so far.
I would have a three-state federated system giving Shia, Kurds, and Sunnis each a state. The federal government would be so structured that the Kurds and Sunnis together could veto anything, or nearly anything, the sheas would want to do. Perhaps have a House that is voted in popularly and a Senate that had forty senators elected from each state. The executive should either be a triumvirate (one executive from each state) or else have the executive have to be approved by both houses of congress (I don't care what they call it. Parliament or whatever would be fine).
Having the Shiites run everything, which is what majority rule would lead to, would only lead a deeply divided Iraq with disaffected minorities that would likely fall apart or turn into a police state as soon as America left. The only viable alternative to power-sharing is to split Iraq into three separate countries.
I think these Sheaites must not be allowed to go unrestrained.
Do I smell a blogwar approaching?
Perhaps I should say "another blogwar".
The facts, and the historical context behind the photograph, is crucial for any intelligent discussion of what's happening in Iraq. These facts were readily available from the news articles from which the photograph was lifted. The political situation in Iraq is extremely complex, and snide comments and soundbyte punditry only contributes to the confusion.
I expect Mr. Shea will take his cue from Mr. Johnson and Mr. Darling's constructive comments, and will strive for a more accurate depication of events in the future. (At least, that's my hope).
No reason to engage in a 'blogwar' over this.
Blogwar? What blogwar? I like Mark, and I even contributed money to his blog last week. If you enjoy it, I hope you do the same.
Likewise. I'd like to think we're all capable of engaging in intelligent discourse populated with constructive criticism.
Q: Just what is a 'blogwar', anyway?
"Just what is a 'blogwar,' anyway?"
It's a lot like "Star Wars," without the big opening night.
To the picture: this is the high-water mark of Shi'ism power. The hope is they can stall and disrupt a constitutional process. I don't think they can succeed. I don't think one can say they know what Islam is like without living in an Islamic country.
[I posted this comment chez Shea's but since it's politico-legal rather than theological in tone in prob belongs here instead.]
"Perhaps have a House that is voted in popularly and a Senate that had forty senators elected from each state"
Good idea. I assume by "popularly" you mean proportionate to population numbers.
My own view, FWIIW, is that a federal upper house should be partly -- but not totally -- weighted towards population, like the German Bundesrat and its Austrian counterpart. That is, the most populous state should not have twice as many senators as the least populous (so the Iraqi Senate range would be, say, 27 to 53 senators per state). That way, any two states, however small, could always outvote any one state, however big. But if the senate delegation from each state divides on party lines (as almost always occurs in Australia: 12 senators per state, 6 elected every 3 years by proportional representation [voting]), then there's not a massive malapportionment favouring the parties strongest in the smaller states.