Why does a "democracy" need a "police force" before anything else?

[kentuck]

The first thing we tried to build in Iraq was a jack-booted security force so we could put a democracy in place. There is no doubt that there needs to be some "domestic tranquility" involved in a democracy. However, it seems to me that the Bush crowd believes if you can stomp down on the people with an over-whelming security force, then everyone will fall in place like good citizens in a good democracy? To me, this seems more the idea of a dictator, rather than someone looking to build a democracy.

Perhaps the Iraqis could build their own democracy if America was not so focused on "protecting" them with a "security force"? Perhaps we are the problem? Perhaps an American-made security force is the problem? After all, many of the bombs and killings are at police stations and recruiting stations? Since when does a "democracy" have to have an overwhelming police force to survive? Perhaps the problem lies a lot in their idea of "democracy"?

[htuttle]

1. They need the police force to guard the banks

That's Job One for any capitalist "democracy".

[Hosnon]

2. Probably because a piece of paper (Constitution) means jack crap if

there's no physical force to enforce it.

[kentuck]

3. Are you suggesting America is a "police state"?

We have all these freedoms - until we start to practice them. Just ask Cindy Sheehan.

[Hosnon]

4. Of course not - but the law requires enforcement or else it is empty. nt

[kentuck]

5. But the point I was trying to make in original post...

...is that the police force is for intimidation, more than for law enforcement. That just seems to me the way the Bush White HOuse looks at the "security force". They need someone to kick down the doors instead of AMericans.

[Hosnon]

6. Oh - I didn't get that "police force" meant something like a secret

police. I thought you meant "physical dimension of the law."

Edit (had to reread OP):

I'm actually a proponent of the benevolent dictator transition. Perfect world would have been Hussein slowly devolving power to the people so democracy wouldn't eat itself alive (as is happening because of our creation of a power vacuum).

So I guess if it were possible for us to set up our own benevolent dictator, i.e. a "police force," I would at the least be open to the idea. That said...I don't think that is possible in this instance.

To your original point: I can see why they want a de facto dictator but it's incredibly off the mark. I would agree with the notion that a fledgling democracy in an unstable area needs a "dictator" for the most effective transition possible.

[The Magistrate]

7. As A Question Of Theory, At Least, Sir

Civil order is essential to a democratic polity, as otherwise poltical factions will tend to compete by arms rather than by ballots. In this particular situation, though, imposition of order is more a requirment of the occupying authority. Thus the recruitement and establishment of a police force is viewed widely as merely creation of a tool for the occupation, and assailed accordingly by those who oppose the occupation of the country. The matter is complicated further by the factional make-up of the puppet government, whose leaders view its security organs as their private fiefs and militias, which simply makes the government one faction in the civil strife, rather than an impartial authority to which all may look for security and justice. Iraq did not hold an election but rather a political census, and the government reflects this in composition and action.

[kentuck]

9. Sir, I agree with your basic premise...

that civil order is essential to a democratic society. However, I do not sense that the new "security forces" are for civil order as much as doing the dirty work of the occupying foce - I guess I may agree with the majority of Iraqis? But does that not make "democracy" impossible, and as you say, the "government" is only one faction in the civil war? Basically, does our presence not hinder the creation of a workable and secure government? It seems to me that as long as we are there, there will be less incentive for the different factions to try and create a workable government.

[The Magistrate]

10. It Does Not Seem To Me, Sir

That democracy is possible in Iraq as presently constituted. The necessary minimums of agreement and identity within an acknowledged collective society does not seem to exist. Democracy among Shia or Sunni Arabs or Kurds might be possible, though we, either as citizens of the United States, or as persons of left and progressive views, would probably not appreciate the results, and would find them most distressing. But taking Iraq as a whole, the thing does not seem possible. Democracy is a good deal more than the minimum requirement of people voting for their leaders. It must be safe to lose the election; it must be possible to rely on losing the election not resulting in extremities of repression and official disfavor. Where voting simply counts the heads of ethnic and religious factions bitterly and violently hostile to one another, and promises to put one in ascendancy over its enemies, that condidtion cannot exist.

[kentuck]

11. Well said, Magistrate...

as usual. :)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

12. Could you elaborate

On what you mean by the difference between an election and a political census, please? I would have thought that a political census was what an election *was*.

[The Magistrate]

16. It Is A Question Of Emphasis, Sir

The distinction is whether the vote is more a count of persons adhering to particular political outlooks and philosophies, or whether it is more a count of persons belonging to particular ethnic or religious or regional groups. Obviously no election will be purely an example of the first case, as identity will often influence political allegiance, but often there will occur pretty pure examples of the second case, in which there is no real difference of political philosphy among the contending groups, only a dispute over who will get to lord it over the rest. The result of such cases is usually the bitter post-colonial jest: "One man, one vote, once...."

[The2ndWheel]

8. Ask the merciless Indian savages

they talk about in the Declaration of Independence. Only one way to pacify an occupied people.

[enigma000]

13. Well, considering one of the first actions the occupiers did

was disband the Iraqi army in 2003, I don't think an over-whelming security force was the first thing on the agenda. Considering the amount of crime, civil disorder, and terrorism (oops said the T-word)in much of Iraq, I fail to see how more police and soldiers on the street would be a bad thing. Its not like the leaders of Iraq are rushing to form a government or anything......

[kentuck]

15. I think they were trying to dissolve the competition..

and felt like they could do a better job of security without having to worry about the Iraqi Army behind their backs...In hindsight, appears to have been a serious mistake.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

14. The strength of police force/military that a state requires

is proportional to the strength of opposition to it, I think. Unless you have considerably opposition the roles of the police and the military should be kept completely separate, but when - as in Iraq - you have numerous armed factions opposing the will of the government then you need more force.

If the government doesn't maintain order, and doesn't have a monopoly of force, then it becomes very difficult for any of the other trappings of a state to function.

I don't think that it has much to do with dictatorship vs democracy, except indirectly: the difference is between how the government is chosen, not how it acts. However, obviously, if the government has a democratic mandate then it's likely that more people will support it, and so it will need less force, than a dictator trying to rule without the consent of the majority of the governed.

I agree that the presence of the American forces are part of the problem, because they're inciting more people to oppose the state. On the other hand, without them, the state wouldn't have enough force to maintain order, I think. It's a Catch-22, and the Americans are caught-22 right in the middle of it.