The Theoretical Idea
The core idea in democracy through state building is rooted in the political form of modernization theory. From 1917 until 1919, President Woodrow Wilson made efforts to re-establish the international order relying on liberalism and democratic forms of government as key to peace and security in both international and domestic politics (Knock 1995; Paris 2001; 2004; Chandler 2006; Belloni 2007). His vision underpinned the modernization theory inspired by western liberal philosophy that stressed political development through institutional expansion, rationalisation of government apparatus, power concentration, and economic industrialisation. Modernization theory highlighted the importance of the western model of political institutionalisation. It argued that democracy was more likely to emerge if political institutions capable of channelling and responding to socio-economic changes were in place (Huntington 1968). Moreover, if a country is to be democratised, other democratic states must help it become a functioning state. This is the state-first argument.
General Pattern: Previous Empirical Studies
For Max Weber, the state is an entity which successfully claims a ‘monopoly on the legitimate use of violence’ (Weber 1919). The state is the sum of effective institutions that requires territory and a population over which it can practice a uniform application of the rule of law.46
It can be conceptualised as the apparatus of rule (Poggi 1978; Tilly 1985) that includes institutions, processes and practices. A nation, however, is not the same as a state. A nation can be defined as ‘a socially constructed community, imagined by the people who perceive themselves as part of that group’ (Anderson 1991: 6). This concept is conducive to a cultural form of a nation allowing it to stay within or transcend a state’s territory. A nation can also be conceptualised as merely a category of persons ‘if and when the members of the category firmly recognise certain mutual rights and duties to each other in virtue of their shared membership of it’ (Gellner 1983: 7). This concept coincides with the boundaries of the state, as far as rights and duties are defined within the legal framework of the rule of law.
46 The definition of state also includes the establishment of a uniform economic structure and a polity that is internally organised and internationally recognised (internal and external sovereignty). Here, I do not intend to theories what a state is, a great scholarly effort on this issue is Robert Nozick’s (1974) work.
The primary characteristic of the modern state is that it acts legitimately in the name of the people or nation. The modern state is normally a nation-state. This combination of the political unit (state) and the national unit (nation) creates nationalism (Gellner 1983; Hobsbawm 1990). Nationalism, as an ideology, has been the driver for the development of nation-states (Poggi 1978). The fundamental question that arises here is what happens if the there is more than one nation within the boundaries of a state? In such a case, nationalism becomes an exclusive phenomenon, including one group and excluding others.
State-building in deeply divided societies remains a challenge. It includes actions to establish the institutions of the state to enable it to perform its core functions (Fukuyama 2004; Call and Cousens 2007; Fritz & Menocal 2007). As a process, it covers consolidation of power, institutionalisation of the apparatus of rule and economic enhancement (Fritz 2007; Belloni 2007; Hehir and Robinson 2007; Crater 2008; Budrich et al. 2010; Sisk and Paris 2009; Raue and Sutter 2009; Krause and Mallory 2010; Mathilde and Hille 2010; Chandler 2010). State building assumes a sequential process, in building effective political institutions, the construction of state infrastructures, and the establishment of a stable economic system. The process, which is context blind, in the case of divided societies, tends to focus on a top down approach to institutions which can exacerbate any potential for conflict. Democratic government is seen as a solution to the problem of nation and state and has become the underlying justification for the strategy of international intervention. There is a split with some arguing that intervention must follow a 'sequence’; a method of putting off democratisation until some indeterminate future time (Fukuyama 2005; 2007; Mansfield & Snyder 2007). Others argue, that it should be 'gradual' (Carothers 2007a; 2007b; Berman 2007).
Those who make the case for international intervention for state building argue that the main reason for such interventions should be to empower weak states to have functioning governments that are capable of planning, executing policies and, enforcing laws (Fukuyama 2005: 9). This is based on the idea that governments seek order first, followed by economic development and, only then, democracy (Huntington 1968).
These views acknowledge three sequential phases to state building; a post-conflict reconstruction that applies to countries emerging from violent conflict; the creation of self-sustaining institutions; and, finally, the strengthening of the authority of a weak state through re-enforcing its authority (Fukuyama 2005: 135-6). It has been argued that it is dangerous to push states to democratise before the ‘necessary preconditions are in place’ and that democracy-promotion efforts should pay attention to fostering the preconditions for self-sustaining institutions (Mansfield and Snyder 2007: 5).
In contrast to sequentialism, another view places democracy at the very outset of the task in the process of creating a new political order as the priority in any international intervention agenda (Carothers 2007b: 18). There are fewer dangers in ‘premature’ democratic experiments than trying to ‘hold off democratic change until conditions are ideal’ (Berman 2007: 14). These views imply that if democracy was left for a later stage, the state institutions might take shape in non-democratic forms, and those very institutions might strangle the emergence of democracy at a later stage.
The Specific Case of Iraq: Previous Empirical Studies
Some scholars have categorised the US intervention in Iraq as a case of nation-building (Dobbins 2003; Feldman 2004; Dobbins 2005; Dianmond 2006; Fukuyama 2006; El- Khawas 2008), calling it American state building in Iraq (e.g. Tripp 2007; Rear 2008; Hechter and Kabiri 2008). Post-invasion Iraq has witnessed efforts to improve democratic legitimacy and strengthen political institutions, what this thesis calls ‘democracy building’. However, other literature labels this as ‘nation’ or ‘state building’ and a distinction needs to be made here; ‘state building’ is the process of making state institutions effective and able to maintain the rule of law; ‘democracy building’, however, as far as state institutions are concerned, is the process of making those institutions more representative, more inclusive and more accountable.
The primary challenge to the process of state building in Iraq was the lack of security, which was a by-product of the power shift from the Sunni to the Shia and the misfit between state, nation and society. The United States’ state building process in Iraq was carried out under military occupation after the destruction of the Iraqi apparatus of rule. In spite of the fact that Iraq’s conventional forces were defeated and the regime
collapsed, militant resistance (Arabic: al muqauama) against the occupation (Arabic: eh’tilal) persisted. One reason for this was that the US sent only one-fifth of the soldiers anticipated by the pentagon’s planners (Woodward 2004) and they proved incapable of filling the power vacuum created after the abolition of the regime and the conventional forces.
The primary reason for militant insurgency was the power shift that the invasion caused. The three provinces of Baghdad, Saladin and Anbar, all Sunni governorates, saw the highest number of attacks on US troops. According to the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, by December 2006, those three provinces alone were responsible for around 80 percent of US military deaths (IBC 2006). On April 16, 2003, Paul Bremer, the administrator of the CPA, promulgated order Number 1 ‘the Debathification of the Iraqi Society.’ The order disestablished the Ba’ath Party of Iraq, abolished the party’s structures and removed its leadership from positions of authority and responsibility in Iraqi society (CPA 2003: 1). Consequently, the process of de-ba’athification prevented former members of the Ba’ath party participating in the newly established power structures in Iraq.47
Although members of both the Sunni and Shia groups held the significant positions of authority in the Ba’ath regime, the implementation of the de- ba’athification did not include the Shias. Prior to December 2005, Sunnis had boycotted the political process. With the Sunnis keeping their distance, Shias filled the majority of public sector, governmental positions and security posts. The Shia were in power. By all accounts, the de-ba’athefication put an estimated 750,000 people out of work and available for insurgency (Dodge 2006: 215). The initial effort of state building in Iraq transformed the existing cultural sectarianism into a tangible political division.
The United States’ objective in state building was to introduce democracy to Iraq and to make the Iraqi government effective, sustainable, and capable of defending itself (Baker and Hamilton 2006). President George W. Bush stated ‘our commitment to democracy is being tested in the Middle East’ (BBC 2003). The United States was concerned mainly about representation and participation and pushed for elections so
47 The disestablishment of the Party was all encompassing and targeted members at all levels, including full members of the Ba`ath Party holding the ranks of UdwQutriyya (Regional Command Member), Udw Far (Branch Member), Udw Shu’bah (Section Member), and Udw Firqah (Group Member). Senior Party Members were also removed from their positions and banned from future employment in the public sector.
that the Iraqi people could have a representative government and assembly by early 2006. It could be argued that the effectiveness of the government was secondary to its representativeness. It could also be argued that only a representative government could be effective and functional, and that was the dilemma. The United States chose to make participation and representation the priorities as they are the two mediums through which government could become functional and effective. Although the Iraqis had an elected parliament and a representative government by 2006, the effectiveness of the government has seen little progress.
The 2011 US withdrawal marked the end of occupation and with it the process of state building. That precipitate withdrawal left the job half done. It has been argued that to foster a legitimate democratic government in Iraq, an extensive long-term commitment of financial, military, and political resources was necessary (Dobbins et al. 2003; Feldman 2004). As early as 2006, the Iraqi Study Group had drawn attention to the fact that without the support of the United Sates, the government was not capable of governing, sustaining or defending itself and suggested that a premature departure from Iraq would lead to both a deterioration in stability and greater sectarian violence (Baker and Hamilton 2006: 32-7).
It has been contended that the United States has been more successful in democratising states than building fresh states (Fukuyama 2005). Along similar lines, it has been demonstrated that the United States has had a better record in improving state capacity and democratic functions than in trying to build state strength where it did not previously exist (Monten 2014; Brownlee 2007). The United States’ chances of success were lowered as the invasion resulted in the collapse of the state through the elimination of the Ba’ath party, the only party for over thirty years, with which the state was synonymous. Therefore, the United States had to build state institutions at the same time as promoting democracy. After more than a decade, Iraq still has a dysfunctional government (Ghamin 2011), and an undemocratic political system.
Table 2.1 provides data on democracy as measured on five different variables from 2006, the first representative government, to 2015. Two variables draw attention to themselves; ‘functioning government’, where for the year 2015, Iraq scores 0.07 (l least
democratic and 10 most democratic) and political participation, where for the year 2015, Iraq scores 7.22. Chapter 1 placed Iraqi political rights and civil liberties in the “not free” category. To what extent political participation could be helpful for the emergence of democracy where the government is dysfunctional is a moot point. This brings us back to the state building versus democratisation debate. In the case of Iraq, democratisation and state building efforts went hand in hand, but both were undermined by the premature withdrawal of the US.
TABLE. 2.1 DEMOCRACY INDEX IRAQ 2006-2015
THE MAIN VARIABLES 2015 2010 2006
ELECTORAL PROCESS 4.33 4.33 4.75 FUNCTIONING OF GOVERNMENT 0.07 0.79 0.00 POLITICAL PARTICIPATION 7.22 6.11 5.56 POLITICAL CULTURE 4.38 3.75 5.63 CIVIL LIBERTIES 4.41 5.00 4.12 OVERALL SCORE: 4.8 4.00 4.01
1.00 Least Democratic10.00 Most Democratic
Conclusion
Iraq is characterised by a misfit between the nation and the state. If the nation is taken as a hypothetical community (Anderson 1991), then, in the case of Iraq, it is problematic since there are different communities in play. If the nation is taken as a polity where the boundaries of identity and of the state are congruent (Gellner 1983), again there are issues because the ethnic differences between Kurd and Arab, and the religious divide between Sunni and Shia, are problematic. Iraq’s deeply divided society remains a challenge to its statehood. This will remain so as long as the main determinant of a state’s strength or weakness is the outcome of the struggle between the state’s application of a set of rules, and other organisations within the society who apply different rules (Migdal 1988).
The process of state building after the collapse of the state in 2003 was undertaken under the most severe set of circumstances imaginable given the diversity in identity
and the unfavourable security situation. The strategy of US for state building in Iraq was to have a functioning government capable of sustaining and defending itself. At the same time, the United States’ aimed to build a representative government and the two processes of state building and democracy were carried out together, but the job was only half accomplished. When the US withdraw from Iraq, the country did not have a functioning government and it was neither able to sustain nor defend itself. It follows that, in so far as state building was the medium through which it was hoped democracy would be established, the US failure in state building in Iraq, inevitably meant the failure to embed democracy.