August 22, 2005

Just a minor matter, really.

With the new Iraqi constitution apparently rolling back many of the rights that women had even under the Saddam Hussein regime, it's interesting to see how backers of Dubya's Iraq policies are trying explain this rollback away.

For example, here's former CIA Mideast specialist Reuel Marc Gerecht speaking on Sunday's NBC program, 'Meet the Press':

Actually, I'm not terribly worried about this. I mean, one hopes that the Iraqis protect women's social rights as much as possible. It certainly seems clear that in protecting the political rights, there's no discussion of women not having the right to vote. I think it's important to remember that in the year 1900, for example, in the United States, it was a democracy then. In 1900, women did not have the right to vote. If Iraqis could develop a democracy that resembled America in the 1900s, I think we'd all be thrilled. I mean, women's social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy. We hope they're there. I think they will be there. But I think we need to put this into perspective.
We'd like to know just what sort of perspective explains away tossing out the rights of half of Iraq's population. And how anyone can say that women's rights aren't critical to the 'evolution of democracy.'

Maybe we're just not smart enough to understand the finer points of spreading liberty in the Middle East.

Thanks to Echidne of the Snakes for spotting the quote.

Posted by Magpie at August 22, 2005 12:00 AM | Iraq | Technorati links |
Comments

World War One was supposedly fought against Germany in order to promote democracy. At least that is what President Woodrow Wilson said.

Great Britain in 1914 -- women were not allowed to vote at all. Also, about one-third of men couldn't vote due to literacy and education requirements.

United States in 1917 -- women only allowed to vote in a few states. Most blacks couldn't vote. Literacy and education requirements in some states disqualified significant numbers of white men as well.

Russia in 1914 -- there were some elections at the whim of the Czar. I don't know who was actually allowed to vote. But elected bodies generally had little real power.

Germany in 1914 -- all citizens were allowed to vote, including women. Elected parliament, with proportional representation (Reichstag), which passed the nation's laws and determined who would be chief executive (chancellor)

Posted by: Richard Pope at August 22, 2005 01:02 AM

Yes, let's put this in perspective- we just spent $300 billion, and took 20,000 American casualties, incidentally dooming over 100,000 Iraqis to death, so we could establish a Taliban-style government in Iraq. Nice going, guys! At this rate, we'll be finished in no time!

Posted by: serial catowner at August 22, 2005 06:38 AM

"Germany in 1914 -- all citizens were allowed to vote, including women. Elected parliament, with proportional representation (Reichstag), which passed the nation's laws and determined who would be chief executive (chancellor)"

Which just goes to show that even having a democracy isn't insurance against making criminally irresponsible decisions. But I think it's a fair argument to make that democracy is strengthened when our concept of who deserves representation is expanded, otherwise you've just got a very large oligarchy.

Posted by: natasha at August 23, 2005 05:47 PM