Neo Kervoskia
06-11-2005, 03:23
After writing my gay marriage essay, I decided to write this. Please tear it to shreds so that I may come up with better points.
The US is currently attempting to install a parliamentary system of government in Iraq. It is the equivalent of a complete revolution. Prior to the invasion, there was a dictatorial regime and before that there was a monarchy. The former was similar to the latter in several respects. One similarity is that power was vested more in the rulers than in the ruled. The given set of rights in Iraq did not include voting rights or the attempted cultural egalitarianism. The problem with this plan is not that it grants more political freedom to the people, but rather that it goes against the tradition and history of Iraq. By enacting such reform, radical when taken in historical context, it is an attempt at societal planning.
It is true that gradual reform is possible, but often times when a set of rights that has little basis in tradition are painstakingly implemented in so short a time, it leads to confusion. The history of Iraq is being ignored in the name of reform. The transition period is amazingly short. The United Kingdom evolved from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy with in several centuries. The transition from dictatorship to republicanism will have taken less than one century.
As the English philosopher and politician Edmund Burke believed, the American colonies were exposed to the “ordered liberty” that prevailed in the United Kingdom. The colonists had a local government, the House of Burgesses, and were subject to the legislation passed by the parliament at Westminster. King George III was the reigning monarch of the commonwealth. The colonists were granted specific rights and privileges given to them by the parliament. Those rights were denied to the colonists and a revolution was needed to protect those rights. The rights were based on history and tradition. It was a defensive war to preserve the liberty of the citizens. The colonists had a foundation on which to build their republic.
The French people were not granted the same rights and privileges that the colonists enjoyed. A parliament did not exist and the monarch was not restrained by an unwritten constitution and a history of reform. The French attempted to build a republic without a historical foundation. It took centuries for the liberty of the English to evolve. To use a phrase from the economist F.A. Hayek, it was “social engineering.” Prevalent traditions were cast aside in an attempt to begin with a blank slate.
However rational a societal plan maybe, it cannot disregard the traditions imbedded in the nation. The rate of change is as important as the reform itself. Simple reforms can be reversed more easily than vast ones. The form of government itself is relatively simple to change. The traditions and the mindset of the people, however, are not. For example, if one has never experienced or is even knowledgeable of the workings of republicanism, then when faced with an entirely new system of government, will be confused.
Due to this ignorance, the system can be taken advantage of and corruption will be rampant. Those who know how to use the system can take hold of it and it is quite possible that the government will revert back to a dictatorship of a different sort. This is not to say the people do not deserve to execute their free will, this only means that a rapid transition will create a delicate state of affairs.
If there is to be a change in government, then the people must be well-prepared for such. Gradual reforms will give the people valuable experience. Once that reform has been instituted, if required then more reform can be fade. The construction of a building does not occur in a single day, it takes years. The history of a nation must be taken into account when societal norms are to be changed. The change could be too heavy for society to bear and it could prove to be quite counter-productive. Successful reform requires time and gradualism.
The US is currently attempting to install a parliamentary system of government in Iraq. It is the equivalent of a complete revolution. Prior to the invasion, there was a dictatorial regime and before that there was a monarchy. The former was similar to the latter in several respects. One similarity is that power was vested more in the rulers than in the ruled. The given set of rights in Iraq did not include voting rights or the attempted cultural egalitarianism. The problem with this plan is not that it grants more political freedom to the people, but rather that it goes against the tradition and history of Iraq. By enacting such reform, radical when taken in historical context, it is an attempt at societal planning.
It is true that gradual reform is possible, but often times when a set of rights that has little basis in tradition are painstakingly implemented in so short a time, it leads to confusion. The history of Iraq is being ignored in the name of reform. The transition period is amazingly short. The United Kingdom evolved from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy with in several centuries. The transition from dictatorship to republicanism will have taken less than one century.
As the English philosopher and politician Edmund Burke believed, the American colonies were exposed to the “ordered liberty” that prevailed in the United Kingdom. The colonists had a local government, the House of Burgesses, and were subject to the legislation passed by the parliament at Westminster. King George III was the reigning monarch of the commonwealth. The colonists were granted specific rights and privileges given to them by the parliament. Those rights were denied to the colonists and a revolution was needed to protect those rights. The rights were based on history and tradition. It was a defensive war to preserve the liberty of the citizens. The colonists had a foundation on which to build their republic.
The French people were not granted the same rights and privileges that the colonists enjoyed. A parliament did not exist and the monarch was not restrained by an unwritten constitution and a history of reform. The French attempted to build a republic without a historical foundation. It took centuries for the liberty of the English to evolve. To use a phrase from the economist F.A. Hayek, it was “social engineering.” Prevalent traditions were cast aside in an attempt to begin with a blank slate.
However rational a societal plan maybe, it cannot disregard the traditions imbedded in the nation. The rate of change is as important as the reform itself. Simple reforms can be reversed more easily than vast ones. The form of government itself is relatively simple to change. The traditions and the mindset of the people, however, are not. For example, if one has never experienced or is even knowledgeable of the workings of republicanism, then when faced with an entirely new system of government, will be confused.
Due to this ignorance, the system can be taken advantage of and corruption will be rampant. Those who know how to use the system can take hold of it and it is quite possible that the government will revert back to a dictatorship of a different sort. This is not to say the people do not deserve to execute their free will, this only means that a rapid transition will create a delicate state of affairs.
If there is to be a change in government, then the people must be well-prepared for such. Gradual reforms will give the people valuable experience. Once that reform has been instituted, if required then more reform can be fade. The construction of a building does not occur in a single day, it takes years. The history of a nation must be taken into account when societal norms are to be changed. The change could be too heavy for society to bear and it could prove to be quite counter-productive. Successful reform requires time and gradualism.