The question of how to enforce power sharing and protection of minority rights is obviously one of the core ‘in principle this can be really bad’ issues.
In the specific care of Iraq though, I wonder how much of the issue going wrong was that the US decision makers wanted a simple majoritarian system, rather than doing something like having a second house for that would be elected along communitarian grounds, in which the Sunni’s would have an effective veto over future policies.
Was something like that being considered at the time, and rejected, not considered, or just trusted in the context?
The question of how to enforce power sharing and protection of minority rights is obviously one of the core ‘in principle this can be really bad’ issues.
In the specific care of Iraq though, I wonder how much of the issue going wrong was that the US decision makers wanted a simple majoritarian system, rather than doing something like having a second house for that would be elected along communitarian grounds, in which the Sunni’s would have an effective veto over future policies.
Was something like that being considered at the time, and rejected, not considered, or just trusted in the context?