Name one Democracy where the winning party must achieve something other than a simple majority (50%+1) in order to govern:
- Senate: No
- House: No
- Presidency: No
I knew this before, but it never really dawned on me just how ludicrous it really was.
Someone please explain why Iraq had to be different from pretty much every other democracy in the world? I’ll try to tame my conspiracy theories for now…. but I don’t know how long I can hold them back.
Alright here comes my conspiracy theory.
What other reason would there be to impose this artificial “super-majority” requirement other than to ensure that the Shiites, who have the obvious majority have a difficult time forming a government.
Now I understand that there was a need to ensure that all parties in Iraq had a voice but should the Iraqi people not be given the benefit of the doubt? Yes, they may be rookies at the whole democracy bit, but they are by no means uneducated or unaware of what a democracy is.
Oh well, it’s really water under the bridge now…
It appears that the Shiites and Kurds have agreed to set aside their differences on the intricacies of their coalition and convene the Iraqi Parliament.
Hopefully when the Iraqi people go to the polls next time they will be doing so under a system designed by Iraqis and for Iraqis… and perhaps that is a little more representative of how the super-majority of democracies in the world actually work.