Plebiscite

Who wants what here? And by here, I mean in Iraq, mostly. Who wants us to stay? Who wants us to go?

These are not idle questions. For one, supposedly the Iraqis want us to stay, as evidenced by the demands of certain Iraqis for us to stay. All well and good for those certain Iraqis. I fully believe that certain Iraqis do want us to stay, just as no doubt certain Iraqis want us gone. The problem is which Iraqis want us where.

And how about at home. If you listen to any pundit, they will tell you conclusively that the American people want us to do something in Iraq. Stay, go, some stay and some go, most go and only a few unlucky stay, etc. and so on. According to the people who get to tell us what we think, we think a wide variety of very different things. I'm prepared to believe that some American citizens want certain things in Iraq, just as they want certain various things elsewhere. The question is which Americans want what.

The assumption always seems to be that people make their will known through their government, so if the government of the United States wants something, clearly the people want that too. And if the Iraqi government wants American troops to stay, well then the Iraqi people must want that too, lock, stock, and barrel. How idiotic is that?

For one thing, the elements of the government don't agree. Sure, one person in the government of any given country might want something, and if that person happens to be in a position of power, the government winds up wanting that thing too, so the people want it too, which means that several gazillion people have their opinions made known through the mouth of one individual. I don't buy that for a second. I don't care which side you're on; surely you must concede that some people don't agree with you.

So if the government can't make up its mind, why should its will be interpreted as the will of the people? Especially when the people weren't asked a direct question? It's common these days to call a general election a "referendum" on an issue if the two parties are divided on the subject. But that's not a referendum (which should be a direct vote on a particular issue, by the way), and that's why you shouldn't use the term because it's tainted.

The term of art is plebiscite, which, according to Princeton, is, "a vote by the electorate determining public opinion on a question of national importance." That's asking the question. Putting it to a vote, as it were. Why can't we do that? Why not ask the question? It seems important enough to me.

This is, of course, leaving aside the other issue of pure majority-rule democracy: roughly half of the people are going to lose any vote. That's something to think about too. Because if someone asked every Iraqi (and the fact that universal voting is practically impossible should also give us pause) whether or not American troops should leave, roughly half of them would hold both sides. I say roughly because statistically, that's the chances. There's a good chance that the vote would be less evenly divided.

So you have to ask yourself, is pursuing any course of action we decide (and notice that we're deciding it, not them) to pursue worth disenfranchising roughly half of the people involved? A third? One person? I don't know the answer, and it's not as simple a question as it appears. If one Iraqi wants us to stay because he or she is afraid for the children of the country, that's a good reason. If, on the other hand, he wants us to stay so he can grow rich on the black market, maintain corrupt power, and kill his political enemies without recourse, that's maybe not such a good reason.

But maybe we should ask the people, here and there, what they think, rather than assuming that because they elected a government for many reasons, they agree with it for one. That might stifle everyone who claims to know the will of the people for a few minutes.