This page was created on February 1, 2005
This page was last updated on February 23, 2005

"The right to vote is a consequence, not a primary cause, of a free social system-and its value depends on the constitutional structure implementing and strictly delimiting the voters' power; unlimited majority rule is an instance of the principle of tyranny." -Ayn Rand

I often consider myself apolitical, but as I have been thinking about it lately, perhaps being apolitical is kind of like being amoral or ahuman (don't try to look that up because I made it up). Ideas and politics matter because ideas and political ideologies have consequences. I deeply care about the things that matter to me politically, like issues of the poor, victims of abortion and so forth, so it's hard to say that politics do not matter-or that elections aren't important.

As Greg has written, the initial elections in the newly declared democratic country of Iraq appear a success, and now we must reconsider whether or not our intrusion into their world was "worth it." Initial reports appear to warrant a guarded optimism, and, even as Time's Charles Krauthammer indicates, may possibly vindicate the Bush administration:

The problem is that U.S. allies in Europe and the Arab world will under-hype this election. When millions of Iraqis risk their lives and then dance with joy at having been initiated into the rituals of democracy, a fact has been created. And the old clichés that America went to Iraq for oil or hegemony begin to look hollow.

Krauthammer goes on to admit that our actions probably weren't all that altruistic:

That is not to pretend that the U.S. undertook Iraq for reasons of pure humanitarianism-as America undertook the rescue of other Muslim peoples (with varying success) in Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo. We would never have invaded Iraq to depose Saddam without 9/11. After 9/11, we finally understood that helping build decent, representative, tolerant societies in the Middle East is ultimately the only way to prevent endless generations of young Arab men from finding fulfillment by crashing airplanes into buildings filled with infidels.

I think we can cynically argue for decades about the reasons for and moral justifications of our actions in Iraq. I want to rejoice with those who rejoice, and I believe that we need to no matter what the motivation was for entering Iraq, but I am painfully aware, as Ayn Rand's quote so aptly said, that voting "is a consequence, not a primary cause, of a free social system." Have we given the Iraqis the hope of freedom without the foundation that secures it? The Russians are still struggling with democracy, after all, because "freedom" can be both a blessing and a curse. We often desire what we can only hope to struggle to maintain.

The following passage, taken from a letter written by Iraqi expatriate Insaf Safou, outlines this caution:

How do I begin to share with you my heart over all that has been happening in my country of Iraq? Yet, I know that many of you share this same heart. Sunday was a bittersweet day for us. We followed closely the elections in Iraq and were so moved by the courage of the Iraqis who boldly went out in great numbers to vote. They knew the very real danger to them but despite the constant threats their desire to see a free and democratic Iraq was their dream. My father's cousin and his eldest son were two of the thousands upon thousands who left to vote on Sunday morning. However, these two were never to return home that day. As they were walking out of the polling station, having cast their vote hoping toward a new Iraq for their yet unborn grandson and son and future generations of Iraqis, a suicide bomber threw him on them. They had courageously done their part, they had contributed to a new and free Iraq but they would not see it.

I read that letter rejoicing with Insaf that her country has taken the first baby steps toward democracy-and I weep with her, in the reality that the situation in her country may suck the life out of any chance of any real democracy and freedom. It is going to take a huge commitment from the Iraqi people and the West to earnestly see the Iraqi people through to the end.

I'm not sure this is a commitment that the United States is willing to make, but we owe them more than a vote. We owe them dignity and the empowerment to operate their country as they see fit. The January 30th election was a great step towards democracy, and I hope and pray it was also a grand step toward justice and freedom, words that are often mutually exclusive and tricky to navigate: but concepts that we must commit ourselves to as people of God, and pray for in countries like Iraq.

I think most of us predicted a much smaller turnout of Iraqi voters, cynically expecting the people to opt for preserving their lives rather than risking them over an unproven "new regime." Really, wasn't this occurrence more than likely just an anomaly? Once the excitement wanes, won't the reality of existing under another form of tyrannical government set in? After all, even democracies can be tyrannical in nature.

Greg and Mike both see the situation in a pretty balanced light, deliberately avoiding the appearance of blind optimism or unmitigated pessimism. And while it is hard to argue with such balance, I'm afraid that in the case of Iraq it is quite possible that human nature will unfortunately prevail.

First, there's the human tendency toward rebellion. Even if something is proven to be in our best interest, our rebellious nature often rejects it. In my experience, our primary instinct is often to rebel against the new-unless we "discover" or learn it on our own, and even then our acceptance is often tenuous. Honestly, when something is forced upon us, or if our actions are dictated by an outside force, how often do we comply? Even if the intentions of the United States have been altruistic (which I don't think anyone believes completely) the fact remains that democracy is being forced upon Iraq by what many perceive (and rightly so) as an occupational force. Democracy was not forced upon the United States; neither should it be forced upon any other country.

A second aspect of human nature which I fear may disrupt the development of democracy in Iraq is the human tendency to force their ideas upon each other as a way of attempting to prove the validity of their own beliefs. Unfortunately this behavior isn't confined to political systems, but also religious ideologies-and in Iraq we're dealing with a powerful marriage of the two. Intolerant religion can easily infiltrate itself into the democratic process through elected officials whose religious zeal may sidestep the choice of the people. (Not that Islam is the primary "intolerant religion"-Christianity certainly has a history of intolerance as well-but the fact is that, specifically, the religious intolerance of Islamic terrorists has led directly to the current situation in Iraq, which happens to be the topic of this discussion.) While I believe that separation of church and state is essential to the success of a democracy, I also believe that the separation should be from religious intolerance or religious dominance, not separation from the diversity that characterizes a state that is sensitive to the various religious (and non-religious) views of its people.

Hope is evident in the words of the Iraqi diplomat to India who states, "We are first and foremost a secular country and a secular society. The Iraqi people reject sectarian behavior." If this is true, then perhaps my observations of human nature are leaning toward the cynical; however, I find the statement hard to believe considering the number of "insurgents" in the country who are continually trying to thwart the democratic process.

In conclusion, we can always hope that these two sides of human nature will maintain a crucial balance, that religious intolerance will be thwarted by rebellion, and that, in the end, freedom and democracy will be seen as a worthy, attainable goal by the people of Iraq. As the Johannesburg Star editorialized, paraphrasing Colin Powell, "Whatever happens now, the elections proved what should perhaps have been obvious, that democracy and the love of freedom are universal values." Unfortunately, I think rebellion and religious intolerance are universal as well. Sorry.

In 2 Corinthians, the Apostle Paul speaks of Christianity as "the ministry of reconciliation."⁵ By this, he means that the central story of the faith is the reconciliation of Man to God through the blood of His Son, Jesus. Christianity, then, is the ministry of reconciliation because all who claim the name of Christ are ministers—literally, servants in the Greek—of God's specific conciliatory purpose.

But Christianity is not only the ministry of reconciliation—it is the ministry of all things godly. One of the other theological terms applied to the act of Jesus' death on the cross is redemption. In conceiving Hollywood Jesus, David Bruce understood that Christianity is also the ministry of redemption—and in particular, it is the redemptive hope for our culture: not through legislation, stone-throwing or critical negativity, but through showing us the godly things already embedded in our culture. For God reveals Himself through all that He has created, even the things that we may not particularly like.

After Eden is dedicated to this redemptive vision. We believe, as G.K. Chesteron put it, that "humanity is not incidentally engaged, but eternally and systematically engaged, in throwing gold into the gutter and diamonds into the sea."⁶ That's not a reality we endorse. We'd like to help salvage the gold from the gutter, and rescue the diamonds from the sea.

Mike Gunn is a pastor at Harambee Church in Tukwila, Washington, and was cofounder of Mars Hill Church in Seattle.

Jenn Wright is a writer with degrees in literature and theology. She is co-writing the Narnia coverage for Hollywood Jesus, which has debuted this fall in anticipation of the first movie's 2005 release.

Hollywood Jesus Senior Editor Greg Wright is a writer and ordained minister of the dramatic arts. He teaches English Literature at Puget Sound Christian College, and is author of Peter Jackson in Perspective: The Power Behind Cinema's The Lord of the Rings.

Editor Dave Stark is an ordained minister and former Microsoft manager. He is now a partner in Restoring Hope Construction.

The Devil's Advocate is a composite personality of our consultants and editorial staff. He may look like someone you know—and probably thinks like a lot of them.

Tom Stoppard
On Democracy

It's not the voting that's democracy, it's the counting.¹

Robert Frost
On Voting

Thinking isn't agreeing or disagreeing. That's voting.²

H.L. Mencken
On Voting

What ass first let loose the doctrine that voting is a noble privilege?³

Claire Sargent
On Politicians

I think it's about time we voted for senators with breasts. After all, we've been voting for boobs long enough.⁴

Chesterton
On Perception
It is a strange thing that many truly spiritual men... have actually spent some hours in speculating upon the precise location of the Garden of Eden. Most probably we are in Eden still. It is only our eyes that have changed.⁷