Sistani: Khomeini or Jean-Paul II ?
Widespread skepticism and disbelief that greeted President Bush pronouncements about his vision of democracy era in the Middle East, remind me strongly of the incredulous reception given to President Reagan statements in the early and mid-1980s about Berlin Wall and the forthcoming era of democracy in Central and Eastern Europe.
Comparison between the two situations is of interest, and may even be of some use.
In first place, there are obvious similarities of the context. In both cases, an US President, broadly considered as an intellectual lightweight, asserts a set of simple ideas and then deploys the vast resources of US government to act on these ideas. In both cases, he is deemed both naïve and foolhardy by the elites, particularly in Europe. In both cases as well, the disparagement is widespread and vehement, from learned disapproval of top academics through witty criticism of leading media commentators to street demonstration of European hoi polloi. Let us note that, coming as it does primarily from the left of the political spectrum, the criticism appears somewhat paradoxical. Traditionally, the US were denounced as a bulwark of conservatism. Yet, in the case of Central Europe and in that of the Middle-East what is being condemned is the refusal of status quo! In other terms, the US are now considered as too revolutionary.
The comparison cannot be drawn to its full conclusion, because one term of it remains open and uncertain. In Central Europe, the vision of democracy has largely triumphed and only the most dogmatic and blinkered observer would argue that Reagan was wrong. In the case of Iraq, and certainly more broadly that of the Middle-East, the outcome remains uncertain. Bush’s wager has not been won as yet. Nevertheless, the comparison with the Reagan’s campaign in the 1980s suggests that, while bold, the wager is both historically righteous and achievable.
The analogy also helps to look at the different light at one of the critical aspects of Iraqi situation: the role of religion in the political transformation of the country and the region. It is now clear that the pace and shape of the transformation will be strongly impacted by Shite clerics, in particular the most revered Ayatollah Sistani.
Perception of his views by public opinion in the West is shaped mainly by the memories of Ayatollah Khomeini, the father of the Iranian counter-revolution. Many fear that a democracy in Iraq may turn out to be a chimerical dream, from which will ultimately emerge a Shiite empire, uniting Iran and large parts of Iraq and dominated by intolerant and shadowy clerics. This would be a nightmare scenario of a “clash of civilizations.”
Yet, events of the 1980s in Central Europe suggest that this is not a fatality. The religion also played a major role in these events. In this case, it was Catholicism rather than Islam. And its impact is unquestionable. Would Central Europe be democratic today without a Polish pope in Vatican? There is not a slightest doubt among historians that Poland was a pivotal country in the rush to democracy and that the seeds of demise of the Berlin Wall were sown by Solidarity movement. National reconciliation talks which led to the end of the State of war and peaceful transfer of power from Communist Party to Solidarity actually took place few months before the fall of the Wall in early 1989. These momentous events would not have happened without the spiritual guidance and authority of John Paul II, authority that reflected the profound and widespread hold of Catholicism over the Polish society. In Poland, the Catholic Church is universally considered the mother of the country. Yet, this close association of state and religion, and the generally conservative outlook of the church establishment, did not prevent, quite to the contrary, a rapid yet successful spread of democratic habits and institutions.
Admittedly, the comparison between Polish Catholic Church and Iraqi Shiites may appear farfetched. For one thing, my knowledge of Shiite religious principles and structures is fairly limited. Nor do I have any idea how each of them considers the other and whether they would consider the comparison an interesting idea or a blasphemy.
In any case, my purpose here is not an erudite exegesis of the two religions. I simply would like to suggest a broadening of the reference framework of the Iraqi situation. Let’s not limit ourselves to local comparison. Let’s avoid a prejudiced view of the role of religion in the advent of the democracy. Why not at least entertain the possibility that Sistani and his movement have a potential of emulating John Paul II and the Catholic Church? I would love to hear from the specialists and experts of Iraq society and religion whether such notion is entirely preposterous or merely far-fetched.

Microsoft vs. European Union: Be careful what you wish for!
It looks like Microsoft finally got his come-uppance. On March 24, 2004, the European Commission issued its ruling on Microsoft. On the face of it, it appears much tougher and far-reaching that any of the US judgments. It seeks not only to redress past market dominance abuses but also to prevent their future occurrence. And it is accompanied by a very large fine, the largest in the illustrious history of EU antitrust.
Yet, appearances can be misleading. Although many a competitor welcome the decision as a victory for the consumer and a dawn of new era of innovation, a degree of cautiousness, even concern is warranted, even among those who share a dire opinion of Microsoft’s tactics.
Who stand to lose and to benefit from the Commission’s ruling? The effective impact of the ruling on Microsoft is uncertain. Even if Microsoft pays the fine, it will barely make a dent in its cash mountain of 50 billion dollars (and growing). Furthermore, as Microsoft will definitely appeal the ruling, its actual execution is at least few years away. By then, the substance of the ruling will have become largely irrelevant. As things stand, there is only one constituency which is absolutely positively set to gain from the Commission’s ruling and its long and tortuous aftermath: antitrust lawyers. For everybody else, in particular the consumers and potential new entrants, short-term and medium benefits are considerably less clear. Will the ruling lower the price of software? Will it accelerate the pace of innovation? The least that can be said is that answers to those questions are far from clear.
On the other hand, the ruling does raise a clear and present danger: of continuing and increasing and administrative interference in a critical economic sector. For those of us who live in Europe, this is nothing new: the European Commission already defines the shape and size of cucumber and the composition of chocolate bar.
Yet, the notion of the European Commission staff defining the degree of unbundling and the icon display on user desktop is deeply disturbing. It is not just a question of political preferences but of economic efficiency. Nobody has ever accused the Commission of being agile and nimble. “Slow-moving, lumbering, bumbling” are the adjectives that come to mind when describing Commission’s pace. As a rule, the Commission intervenes late and aims at wrong targets. This is already bad for the stable sectors such agriculture or steel industry but it would be positively lethal for rapidly evolving domains such information technology and the Internet. Do we want the European Commission to get involved in the search engines and mobile data protocols? The likely result of such involvement would be raising general costs of doing business and slowing the pace of innovation.
Proponents of Commission’s intervention got themselves a fool’s bargain: competitive barriers to entry will be replaced by regulatory hurdles. And the experience shows that it is easier to eliminate the former than the latter