It is often heard during debates over the future of Iraq, that they might choose elect an anti American theocracy? As well as its corollary: what if they don't want democracy at all? The suprise here is that this usually comes from someone living in a democratic country.
There is nothing in the theories of democratic government to suggest
this and when I say theories of democratic goverment I am thinking primarily of Locke, the American Founding Fathers, etc.
As it is often said Democracy is not a suicide pact. Generically,
Democracy means majority rule. Most people treat this as the only
criteria to judge Democracy.
More precisely Democracy means the consent of the governed that is
that discretion over laws, representatives, etc resides with the people. But doesn't that mean Majority rule? You ask
It sure does, but even here in America we do not always look to simple quantitative majorities. There are at least two other types: For constitutional Amendments there must be a three quarters majority in each house of congress and those of the ratifying states.
In other cases a two thirds majority is required and lastly
generational majorities.
The implication is that Democracy also means the right to change your mind. That is those who in theory might want to elect a theocracy should be allowed to unelect it if they decide it is not
what they had in mind.
Historically theocracies (I am thinking mostly of the Iranian model
here) are hostile to Democratic governance and instead see its
institutions as an obstacle to be obliterated.
In a Democracy the majority has discretion over many things, but what
it can not have is the power to eliminate the descretion of others or its own.
Divided government and a bill of rights is the very thing that
preserves the most essential ingredient in Democratic life:
That the locus of discretion resides with the governed in spite of
transient majorities.
The prospect that Iraqis may choose to to populate its government
with anti-american officials is clearly possible in this context and perhaps
even likely after a US occupation, but the question
would then only be whether those same officials wanted say trade
agreements with Iran or war with the US. Clearly the latter would
be as intolerable as Hussein's own government, but historical
experience teaches us that democracies seldom, if ever go to war
against one another.