- #246
HossamCFD
- 63
- 199
mheslep said:The Iraqi system has its flaws, but Malaki was nonetheless selected by popular vote, as was his replacement. Their political parties are not the stuff of the Muslim Brotherhood. Neither man arrived at power at the point of a gun or by massacre, as did their Iraqi predecessor and many of their middle eastern peers. Yes Sistani has *influence*, a great deal, but I'd not say he had the last word. One could argue the US President held more sway (e.g. refusal to allow US to be a Shia Air Force). Other world leaders have been influenced, almost commanded, by those out of government power; the coal union leadership in the the UK in the 1970s comes to mind. This hardly disqualifies these countries as democracies.
Well, in my original comment to which you were replying I was suggesting pluralistic, western style, liberal democracy as the third option, not merely majority rule and public vote. Maliki's departure could've been much more violent, and yes Obama's reluctance to come to his aid did play an important role, but his legacy also includes ISIS capitalising on his failing to represent his constituents.
Mubarak won the public vote several times, and he did leave relatively peacefully. He certainly wasn't as bad as Assad or Qaddafi, but he's not what I had in mind when I was speaking about a cure for the middle east, neither is Maliki.