Why is the Iraqi government parliamentary?


PDA






MaterDei
May 20, 2005, 10:31 AM
How come it is that whenever the U.S. topples a foreign regeme that they install a parliamentary form of government rather than one closer to our own?

Is this an indication that our government doesn't like its own structure?

If you enjoyed reading about "Why is the Iraqi government parliamentary?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
monsternav
May 20, 2005, 08:24 PM
I've often wondered that also. Maybe because of the British ties in the area. I think they also worry about an elected President turning into a dictator. The PM of a Palimentary style gov't always has to have a coalition of major parties to govern.

bjbarron
May 20, 2005, 11:06 PM
I would think that the concept of 'one man - one vote' is a popular one for new democracies. It is also the form of government that most of the free world is familiar with. A single legislative house bound by a constitution. The house members are chosen locally and the party leadership then chosen by members.

Think how different it is in America. Only one-third of the government is chosen locally (with the locality larger than most countries), one-third is chosen by nationwide voting, and one-third is appointed for life by agreement between the other two-thirds. At the time it was thought very radical and doomed to failure. Too much power given to the people.

The key to understanding the American system is to imagine that you have the power to make nearly any law you want. But your worst enemy will be the one to enforce it. - Rick Cook

One-man-one-vote tends to generate lots of parties that need to band together to create a majority for efficient government. Iraq is still a tribal society, with at least 6 ethnicities and probably hundreds of tribes. A parliamentary form of government is what this type of society seems to need.

Our form of government is unique and considered experimental by people who study this sort of thing. It was a direct result of the founders wanting to avoid constitutional monarchy and a parliament...combining states rights v. individual rights v. federalism. Splitting the power between three branches...and attempting to govern a continent with a people more diverse than any individual European country would ever see.

It has worked amazingly well seeing the founders worked up a system for a voting population that was male, ethnically homogenous (white), but economically and socially diverse (farmers v merchants) while being very self-sufficient and spread over the continent. We are certainly not ethnically homogenous now, but with tweaks over the years it still seems to work.

In my opinion, this is the reason we should not change our electoral college. With one-man-one-vote, you would immediatly have at least a dozen parties trying to make deals in Congress to hold power....think about it. The Rs and Ds would split into left, center, and right, libertarians, religious parties, moonbat parties, greens, racial, constitutionalists, 2A, 1A, flat-earthers, etc.

Joejojoba111
May 20, 2005, 11:16 PM
Parliament is just a general term to refer to elected peoples.

For media purposes they want to be kind of clear, but kind of concise, and always really simple. So they pick words that they think will fit all those criteria, and sacrifice accuracy. Just my opinion. For instance, sometimes news will say "Knesset", sometimes they'll use synonyms.

For Iraq, I don't think they have a government right now. They have a Transitional National Assembly, unicameral (1 room of people voting), which is working on designing the constitution, which will describe how the government will be. It could very well copy America to the T. Obviously it will have to be a federation, or maybe if they're really enlightened, a confederation (more independence).

rwc
May 21, 2005, 01:14 AM
Two issues seem to commonly influence decisions.
1. Those with a recent experience of dictatorship or repression are unlikely to select a form of government with a strong executive branch.
2. A parlimentary/prime minister form of government allows for greater representation of minority interests through a greater number of politically significant parties. It also more frequently requires coalition building to form a government. Our de-facto two party system marginalizes many who would have a greater voice in government were we to have a parlimentary system.

Hkmp5sd
May 21, 2005, 01:21 AM
It has worked amazingly well seeing the founders worked up a system for a voting population that was male, ethnically homogenous (white), but economically and socially diverse (farmers v merchants) while being very self-sufficient and spread over the continent. We are certainly not ethnically homogenous now, but with tweaks over the years it still seems to work.
The present US government is nothing like the government created by the founding fathers. When the country was formed, each state acted as independent countries and the job of the federal government was to assist in their dealings with each other and stay out of the way as much as possible. All of that ended when Abraham Lincoln decided to become a dictator.

Crosshair
May 21, 2005, 01:45 AM
With the minorities are in Iraq I think they would be better served with a government like our own. Isolated "States" rather than one large state. I may be wrong, but that is how I see it.

bjbarron
May 21, 2005, 01:55 AM
The present US government is nothing like the government created by the founding fathers. When the country was formed, each state acted as independent countries and the job of the federal government was to assist in their dealings with each other and stay out of the way as much as possible. All of that ended when Abraham Lincoln decided to become a dictator.

Certainly a valid point about how much has changed...just look at the changes in how the President is elected, much less the loss of state's rights.

However, do you think we could have survived for the past couple of centuries as a nation in a hostile world without some changes? East, South, and West as separate political entities were a distinct possiblility were it not for the War of Northern Agression? How would we have survived the wars of the last century divided like that? Just wondering.

Joejojoba111
May 21, 2005, 01:58 AM
"1. Those with a recent experience of dictatorship or repression are unlikely to select a form of government with a strong executive branch."

I think that a prime minister is stronger, closer to a dictator than a president. They're head of government and they're leader of a party and they're head of the legislature and they appoint people ... Presidential powers are lesser, imo.

jdberger
May 21, 2005, 04:21 AM
The present US government is nothing like the government created by the founding fathers. When the country was formed, each state acted as independent countries and the job of the federal government was to assist in their dealings with each other and stay out of the way as much as possible. HK, you might be thinking about the Articles of Confederation as opposed to the present Constitution which has only been amended 18 times. 2 of those don't really count (Prohibition and it's repeal) so 16 times. Constitutional Amendments (http://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html)

There have always been those in government that argued for a stronger central government. Madison was a Federalist.

rms/pa
May 21, 2005, 07:34 AM
our federal/state/ local lash up is possible because the states preceeded the central government.

following an overthrow of a dictatorship there are no strong legitimate state/regional structures to hang a federation government from. with a parlimentry type government ministrys/departments can be created from the top down to handle regional questions.

parliments can be more easily fragmented but they can spread dissatisfaction quite well.

look at italys (non) government

rms/pa

Brett Bellmore
May 21, 2005, 09:51 AM
I think in large part it's because the people running our government don't like the way it's designed. Which is to be expected: It was designed for our benefit, not their's. Give them a chance to design a government from scratch, and they inevitably design one they'd like to be part of; No right to keep and bear arms, no right to trial by jury, things like that.

Hkmp5sd
May 21, 2005, 10:21 AM
There have always been those in government that argued for a stronger central government. Madison was a Federalist.
True. But the way Lincoln achieved a strong central government was in direct opposition to the US Constitution.

- Launched an invasion of the South without consulting Congress, as required by the Constitution.

- Declared martial law

- blocked Southern ports (the Constitution permits blockades only in time of war and with a foreign power)

- suspended the writ of habeas corpus on April 27, 1861 for the duration of his administration

- imprisoned without trial thousands of Northern citizens. Historians estimate he imprisoned approximately 13,000 persons as political prisoners.

- arrested and imprisoned newspaper publishers critical of him

- ordered the Postmaster General to deny mail delivery to newspapers that opposed him

- censored all telegraph communications

- created news states without the consent of the citizens of those states (ever wonder where West Virginia came from?)

- ordered federal troops to interfere in elections in the North by intimidating Democratic voters

- Deported a member of Congress (Vallandigham of Ohio) for opposing the income tax proposal

- confiscated private property

- confiscated firearms in violation of the 2nd Amendment

- gutted the 10th and 11th Amendments of the Constitution.

- protected his administration against criminal arrest by creating the "Indemnity Act" that placed the president, his cabinet and the military above the law with regard to unconstitutional and arbitrary arrests. The law failed to achieve enough votes to be passed, so the presiding officer in the Senate declared the law valid and adjourned the Senate.

Shall we continue....I could go on for hours....

However, do you think we could have survived for the past couple of centuries as a nation in a hostile world without some changes?

The end justifies the means? I do not think we are better off today because of the federal government becoming the dominating force in this country. The reason for the states retaining power was so that individual votes did mean something.

MaterDei
May 21, 2005, 09:56 PM
Shall we continue....I could go on for hours....

Please do! It needs to be said.

Don't Tread On Me
May 22, 2005, 05:14 PM
Hmmm what was it again that Lincoln did to the Supreme Court Chief Justice?


Lincoln was America's Saddam Hussein. No difference.


We are hypocrites of the highest order to think our history has been one of high political morality.


South was inches from winning it all, their critical flaw? They actually thought the North would be civil and trustworthy.


Let's not forget the lifetime of quotes from Lincoln admitting to being a white supremacist and negro hater.


You know the old saying "History is written by the winner"...this is why the general American knowledge and perception of that historical period is perverted and distorted so badly. "Reconstruction" wasn't just the rape of the South, it was the calculated historical revisionism project of the century.


John Wilkes Booth was a hero, not a madman. Schools tend to omit the fact that the plot wasn't just out to get Lincoln, but to whack a number of people in his administration. Remember, if you just call him a "madman", people just think if it as sad. If you advertise that he was a very sane person with a clear political opposition and cause, as well as being involved in a larger plot, naturally people will ask "why did he do it".


In America, no one ever asks why the "bad guys" do it. They are just "mad men".


Suggested Reading:

"The Real Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo


"The Ballad of Carl Drega" by Vin Suprynowicz

jdberger
May 23, 2005, 04:16 AM
Boldly stolen from another's review of the aforementioned book:

What a cheap opportunistic book this is. I'm sure Di-Lie-Renzo is laughing all the way to the bank with this one!
Spring 1861. Riots erupted in Baltimore. Bridges were burned, telegraph lines were cut, Union troops trying to pass through to DC were stoned; Confederates had blockaded the lower Potomac. The governor of South Carolina (Gov. Pickens) had written a letter calling for his militia to invade Washington DC. "Dear Genl: The Navy yard at Norfolk is all in flames -- Baltimore unanimous on our side, and all communications with Washington cut off -- & only 5,000 troops in Washington -- it can be taken! etc. etc." The Confederate Secretary of War boasted that before May the Confederate flag would rise above the Washington. Washington was in grave danger of being invaded and burned, the government of the United States destroyed forever. Congress was not in session. Lincoln, in the words of Secretary of State Seward, was extremely reluctant to suspend habeas corpus. One Sunday Seward pleaded with him and he was told that the penalty for further delay was perdition, which was completely accurate. Lincoln very reluctantly agreed to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. Lincoln was correct.

If I pay $50 to listen to one of Di-Lie-Renzo's half-baked speeches, will he tell me why the Confederacy suspended habeas corpus? Will he tell me why they called for conscription and declared martial law? Or would that take away from his meal ticket of telling Neo-Confederates the fairy tales they yearn to hear?

Why did Lincoln offer Vallingham safe passage through Confederate lines? Because he was organizing violent anti-Union groups. If during World War II, all of the German-Americans in Washington DC were plotting to riot, overthrow the United States government, and take up arms against Americans, would Di-Lie-Renzo think they were in the right? He probably would. Lincoln was right.

Lincoln was personally responsible for suspending only one newspaper - the New York World -- for running a faked proclamation in his name that demanded 100,000 more soldiers. In short, it was treason and one of countless Copperhead plots against the United States - this one with the aim of setting off a new draft riot in NYC. Lincoln was doing his job - protecting the citizens of the United States. Lincoln suspended the newspaper for a week. Lincoln was right. In nearly every other instance, Lincoln was continually overriding his overzealous generals and coming down on the side of free speech and freedom. This is documented. If you want to see the facts, the actual records of the Union's civil liberties policies, and not Di-Lie-Renzo's fabrications and misquotes, read "The Fate of Liberty".

Lincoln never debated Stephen Douglas over tariffs. Di-Lie-Renzo is lying. Big surprise there. The tariff of 1857 (the existing tariff before the Morill tariff, which went through in 1861 BEFORE Lincoln was sworn in as President and AFTER the Southern Senators had already walked out) was the lowest in 20 years and had bipartisian support. The delegates from South Carolina had voted for it. Di-Lie-Renzo is incorrect.

The Union held elections in the middle of the war - an election Lincoln himself believed he was going to lose. Sheesh, some dictator he was. Di-Lie-Renzo is, as usual, incorrect.

As far as the dreck about Lincoln and racism, Frederick Douglass said it best: "Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined."

And I'll close with Robert. E. Lee: "I surrended as much to Lincoln's goodness as I did to Grant's armies."

Brett Bellmore
May 23, 2005, 06:05 AM
Lincoln very reluctantly agreed to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. Lincoln was correct.

So? He "reluctantly agreed" to do something he had no authority to do. A repeating theme in his administration.

Lincoln was the classic, "He meant to rule well, but he meant to RULE." leader. He may have had good motivations in some cases, but he just went ahead and did whatever he though needed doing, and whether he had any authority to do it just wasn't a consideration.

Hkmp5sd
May 23, 2005, 10:01 AM
Boldly stolen from another's review of the aforementioned book:

:rolleyes: Feel free to read the book and form your own opinion before entering discusions. It is not necessary to read it with an open mind, as this is impossible for some, but actual knowledge is required.

Lincoln was personally responsible for suspending only one newspaper - the New York World --

Is this a trick comment? Personally and suspending? I guess if your Postmaster General refuses to deliver a newspaper to their subscribers, he technically isn't suspending the newspaper and you are not personally doing anything.

The Lincoln administration censored, blocked and/or intimidated the following newspapers: Journal of Commerce (NY), New York Daily News, The Daybook, Brooklyn Eagle, Freeman's Journal, Chicago Times, Dayton Empire, Louisville Courier, Maryland News Sheet, Baltimore Gazette, Daily Baltimore Republican, Baltimore Bulletin, Philadelphia Evening Journal, New Orleans Advocate, News Orleans Courier, Baltimore Transcript, Thibodaux (Louisiana) Sentinel, Cambridge Democrat (Maryland), Wheeling Register, Memphis News, Baltimore Loyalist and Louisville True Preesbyterian.

Newspaperman and grandson of Francis Scott Key (of The Star Spangled Banner fame) Francis Key Howard of Baltimore spent two years in military prison in Fort McHenry without being charged and without a trial for criticizing Lincoln. He wrote of his experiences in his book, The American Bastille.

Or maybe he was lying too...? :rolleyes:

There are MANY authors that agree with DiLorenzo, but show Lincoln in a different light because they, like many people today, can wear blinders and only see how the country is today and say that Lincoln must have been right. The end justifies the means for these people.

Lincoln never debated Stephen Douglas over tariffs. Di-Lie-Renzo is lying.
Please identify this lie. Can't seem to find it. BTW, you might want to read the debates yourself too.

The Lincoln-Douglas Debates (http://www.founding.com/library/lbody.cfm?parent=64)

PS: Normal adults do no resort to name calling in an effort to justify their side of an argument. In fact, most kids above 2nd grade of dropped this tactic. Perhaps the aforementioned reviewer can find some other method of attacking the author instead of calling him "Di-Lie-Renzo" .

jdberger
May 23, 2005, 11:32 AM
Feel free to read the book and form your own opinion before entering discusions. It is not necessary to read it with an open mind, as this is impossible for some, but actual knowledge is required. Good point. However, as the amount of free time I have is finite, I look to others to sift through the wealth of materials out there. I also won't read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (http://www.rotten.com/library/hoaxes/zion-protocols/) or anything by Lyndon LaRouche (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche) . I included the review because I thought that it was pithy and the thread needed an opposing opinion. :neener:

I'm not much into revisionist history. It doesn't matter to me whether Jefferson owned slaves or had an affair with one. IMO, Lincoln did what he had to do at the time. That he was able to preserve the Union despite all of his missteps and flaws speaks volumes.

Gordon Fink
May 23, 2005, 01:08 PM
Regarding the U.S. Civil War

If the slaver states had done more talking and less shooting, maybe the whole mess could have been resolved peacefully with less Constitutional damage.

~G. Fink

Hkmp5sd
May 23, 2005, 01:10 PM
That's ok. I absolutely refuse to read anything by Howard Zinn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Zinn). I did manage to force myself to read A People's History of the United States, which would be better titled A Marxist Review of Everything I Could Find Wrong with the United States.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why is the Iraqi government parliamentary?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!