Good News From Iraq: A Constitution!

Remove all ads!

Despite the incompetence of the way in which the War in Iraq has been conducted, there is some good news here:

For once Bush is right: This is good news. The people of Iraq appear to have a new consitution, one which they have agreed to:

I could go into a long list of reasons why this war should never have happened the way it did. But, there is a promise that the Iraqis have a chance at self-determination. The problem still remains, of course, that all this is far from settled. And while it is a blow to those who are enemies of liberty, this is a good first step. The war will continue to drag on and Americans will continue to lose lives and pour it's heavily taxed resources into Iraq, with no clear picture of what will be the end game. Iraq could still remian in the current state of bloody affiars for many years as a result of how this was so badly bungled by George II and his guys.

But I have to say this: God bless the Iraqi people for having the courage to stand up to those who are opposed to a political solution from taking place in their country. And God bless George Bush for at least believing that democracy and freedom are transforming principles, even in a place where they were hardly wanted or believed in at first.

One day the Iraqis may really be a free people. The odds are not that good, but then again, the odds were terrible regarding American independence also. But we did it anyway - and common people struggling to achieve a common cause, may surprise everyone and the Iraqis may accomplish the same (God knows they have suffered enough). But unfortunately, for them, and for us, George Bush II is no George Washington.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9659209/

 

I second those thoughts, Chandos.

As much as I disagree with how it's been done, and as much of a costly, bloody and bitter debacle as the invasion of Iraq has been, hopefully it has set the scene for a better future in that country. After everything that's happened over the last 25 years or so, the Iraqi peoples certainly deserve something to celebrate.

 

Don't place too much substance into the word "Constitution". The Iraqi Constitution is a document of agreements to come to agreements at a future date.

In the meantime...

 

So, er - what does this constitution say...?

 

Turnout was high, which is definitely a good thing. 60% overall , and 66% in the Sunni area's. A taste of democracy at least.

 

The document itself is a collection of over 130 provisions, or articles, many of which contradict each other. Personally, I believe it is a poorly crafted document, but that's beside the point, since I don't have to vote on it, or live under it myself.

For instance, people have the right to privacy as long as they don't contradict "public morals," whatever those are; people have religious freedom, but in it's statement of principle it declares that it is an Isamic state and that no laws can be passed that contradict Isalmic law; religious authority figures very prominently in its articles, but it will have an elected body of legislators. It borders on declaring a theocracy, while at the same time delaring its desire to be a democratic state.

My feeling is that it will be revised at some point; it's a far from perfect framewrk for a working government. The important thing is that the government takes whatever form that the people themselves select - that it is a representative government.

 

My feeling is that thousands upon thousands don't give a crap about whatever is in that constitution, and will continue to wreck havoc for decades to come.

 

Nevertheless, there are thousands upon thousands who did vote for this constitution, regardless of what's in it. People wish to determine their own destinies, and it also makes a statement about the desire for a political solution, despite all that has happened there.

But I agree with you that there will be years of bloodshed to come. Unfortunately, it's been said by some that it's "better to fight the terrorists there, than in the streets of New York."

 

I really wonder how is Democracy is meant. Since the main idea of this constitution is the Islamic beliefs (Saria), not too democratic.
And secondly this constitution has been through Scylla and Harybdes, with a lot of pushing from US and UN.
I fear that it won't stand as long as we would wish. Furthermore nothing stops now a potential dictator from "gaining" the elections and becoming Shaddam in the place of Shaddam.
Even under the cloack of the US. Which would not be so unheard of after all.

 

A Constitution! And yet so many prefer Wisdom or Intelligence!

 

Ba-doom teesh!

 

Really...since when?

Yes, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It seems that the religious leaders will have a pretty large veto on the Council of Representatives. It will be interesting to see how they manage to resolve this.

[ October 18, 2005, 03:54: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Actually, I'd rather Wisdom and Intelligence... although they tend to be necessary elements in any effective and useful Constitution.

Recent evidence (and "Team America: World Police") indicates that Intelligence is rarely a dependable stand-alone basis for action.

/me ducks the guy with the hook

Ahem...

I actually believe that the incorporation of Islamic principles in the Constitution may be a good thing in the long term, although the possible effects on liberties are a concern (particularly for women). Without knowing the full extent of their incorporation or how much power is ceded to religious leaders, I couldn't comment further. Imposing secular principles in this situation may only lead to greater suffering, feelings of resentment and disenchantment, and could ultimately provide fuel for insurgent/Islamist activity. While it deserves close attention, I feel that it is a much wiser course than a completely secular set of documents - at least, for the sake of stability, which Iraq so badly needs.

 

I for one cannot derive any optimism from the Iraqi constitution vote. Firstly, I believe the failure to kill the charter will produce a violent backlash by making Sunnis, who resentful at losing power since Saddam Hussein's fall, will feel even more marginalised. This resentment will be manifold due to dubious circumstances in which the vote took place. On Monday some Iraqi election officials were beginning to say they had come upon major irregularities and suspiciously high Kurdish voter turnouts, in places exceeding 95%. Allegations of vote-rigging say soldiers had removed ballot boxes and that there had been more votes cast than registered electors. Election officials have also queried US assertions that the draft constitution was likely to be approved. I find these premature assertions to be deeply suspicious. How could they be so sure of the result, since counting was not yet complete? Particularly in light of the higher than expected Sunni-Arab turnout. I think the somewhat duplicitous nature of the Iraqi authorities and the fact that the count would be flawed the real thing they knew.

 

No offence, but why was everyone swallowing the official line of mindless optimism regarding this that it being passed would be a mere formality? The constitution was always going to have an extremely difficult and hard time, particularly given the 'three provinces' stipulation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4372094.stm

The constitution could easily be rejected now. Even if it isn't, then the continuing and obvious disaffection felt by Sunnis is hardly a cause for rejoicing. In many ways, this vote will simply confirm what we already knew; the Shia and the Kurds are generally positive about the direction of the country, while the Sunnis are still rejecting the entire political framework of the new Iraq, and it seems to me that it would be woefully innacurate to suggest that this could be a realistic basis for future stability.

The fact that the vote has produced many apparent irregularities and suspiciously high totals in many places also does not bode well for a healthy democracy in Iraq.

 

While the notion of a "healthy democracy" in Iraq is still a long way off, even if it ever happens, the majority of the country may still find a political solution. The alternative is civil war and more violence. Some forget that the Sunni are in the minority there. That means that in a democracy they will be out voted anyway. If a political solution is to work, they will have to form politcal alliances with other factions with shared interests, if they are to make themselves felt politically. Of course they can still continue to car bomb everyone that they disagree with, in the process killing innocents, and bringing only more hatred on the themselves from the rest of the country.

 

So your solution to re-enagement with the Sunnis is "shut up, guys, and get on the wagon."? That they'll just 'come around' eventually?

Again, you can't create a viable political programme on idealism, unfounded optimism and soft-headedness; which is what the whole Iraq experiment was based on. The whole thing has been a massive festival of bad policy making.

Nor can you simply ignore 20% of a given population because they are being inconvienient and rebellious. That is a recipe for chronic instability.

 

Blowing people up may seem a bit more than "inconvienient" to the parents who have pull the dead bodies of their children from the burning wrekage left behind by the "rebellious." But, guess what happens in a democracy if you only get 20 percent of the vote? You lose. That's why a bill of rights is important in crafting a constitution, so that the majority does not oppress the minority.

[ October 25, 2005, 16:24: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

I don't believe that anyone is disputing the foundations of democracy, but merely where, when, and how Sunnis are going to becoming engaged in the new Iraqi polity. If you want to dispute the idea that you cannot achieve stability when 20% of your population are seriously disaffected, and, indeed, reject the entire framework of political debate and action, then I eagerly await such an argument. But you have not, as of yet, forwarded one.

So again, we have to return to the key issue; what is the solution to something which may be called the 'Sunni Question'?

This is the fundamental political issue in Iraq at the present time, and the fact that here and in the language of the Bush administration, only hollow invective can be invoked as a 'solution' speaks wonders.

 

From what little I hear, it seems to me that the Sunnis themselves have chosen to divorce from the democratic process and embrace their radical path. Who currently in Iraq is telling Sunnis not to vote, not to be involved, not to take part in shaping the country? When a voice is raised in the cause of destruction, instead of construction, it quickly gets hard to listen to.