UPDATED: “The Iraqi” Writes On The Iraqi Constitution
My friend, who writes under the name “The Iraqi,” has sent me an analysis of the Iraqi constitution and the Iraqi constitutional process.
As he said in an email to me a month ago, his opinions are his opinions– but hey, that’s democracy. He makes his points, and often makes them bluntly. Example: ” Federal Iraq? Fine with me, but no loopholes, no secession, one army, no lebanization, and Islam should be a source not the source.”
“Lebanization” = Lebanonization. I take that to mean fragmentation into “confessor cantons” or warlord statelets.
Yezidis may dispute his population figures, but then the first Yezidi I actually met is a close friend of his. You’ll also see that he is an Arab with a Kurdish grandparent. Keep that in mind when he comments on Kurdish politics.
Once again, The Iraqi:
The Iraqi Constitution
My Yezidi (followers of one of Iraq’s most ancient religions) friends love the way I feel about the role of religion in the Constitution, namely zilch! The statement “Islam is the official religion of the state” to me is an oxymoron; the prowess of a constitution is measured by how much it can make the tiniest minority feel equal with the largest.
This coming from an Arab Muslim excited them, at 50 000 in Northern Iraq they are 0.2% of the population.
I’m sure I’m not the only one in Iraq who thinks this way, having the bragging rights of 1st civilization and 1st law on Earth behooves us to create one worthy of this heritage.
So why am I not feeling comfortable about the status of constitution shaping debates?
For one thing, I do not like this rush to a constitution; this is being urged on an American agenda, not an Iraqi one.
Yes an elected government but it still works in a zone that is protected by non-Iraqi forces, that does not deligitimize it but it is an irony
If you read carefully the draft published by Al Sabah newspaper of July 6 you will get the feeling that it was written by liberal secular authors but later amended by shia islamists intent on indulging religion in the way a state runs its affairs, examples of conflict:1- In one part men and women are equal, in another they are treated according to Islam
2-It gives special status to Marjiia, a term that normally apply to Shia clergymen who normally live in the holy cities of Karbala and Najaf while at the very beginning it is clear about “The people are the source of all authorities”It took us 5 years to create our first royal constitution (a mix of British and Swiss ones) under the auspices of the British Empire in 1920’s, I once read it took 5 years to create the American one and that Gen. McArthur helped the Japanese to write theirs after WWII occupation by 7 years.
Kurds want to include the right to secede and to have their own army/militia and representatives at Iraqi embassies abroad, in Ottawa the word “Embassy of Iraq” is 1st written in Kurdish big font then below Arabic small font! and at 17% of the population I think that is too much and a recipe for forthcoming disasters, yes I’m 25% Kurdish but I do not like those aspirations neither I like the current Kurdish tribal leadership of Barzani who cooperated with Saddam to get Talabani followers (not tribal and coming from the ranks of educated kurds) out of some areas in Northern Iraq in 1996.I think the Kurds deserve better than tickling nationalist feelings to feed the greed for power.
Shia of the SCIRI (Supreme Council of Islamic Republic of Iraq) led by Al Hakim who opposed the American intervention in Iraq are using their status as co-majority in the January 2005 elections to push for a federal Iraq that include a southern area ruled by them and give them special powers above the law and similar to the ones enjoyed by their counterparts in Iran, not all Iraqi shia support this and on August 11 2005 Dr. Attallah Muhajirani the reformist minister of education in Iran wrote an article in “Asharqalawsat” warned against falling for an expedited constitution “My Iraqi friends, be attentive to the creation and foundation of your constitution, the Iraqis have suffered too much already, it is not fair to subject them to religious tyranny which is the harshest and most ferocious kind of all.”
Sunnis are faced with this along with trying to build a coalition among themselves under the current adverse conditions. The big silent majority are trying to live day by day and hope for a better future; they lived for 50 years under temporary constitutions (AKA None) changed by will of tyrants. Federal Iraq? Fine with me, but no loopholes, no secession, one army, no lebanization, and Islam should be a source not the source
Women and men should be treated equal unequivocally, no turnaround or ambiguous articles elsewhere.
I add my humble voice to the number of respectable Iraqi intellectuals www.elaph.com who proposed a 5-year waiting period before writing a constitution, mean while we can still use the interim one.
UPDATE: Note to commenters who have attacked my friend because they believe he is a Sunni. My friend was anti-Saddam and resisting Saddam in the 1980s. Remember that. George Galloway and Michael Moore still carry a flame for Saddam. I urge you to contact Galloway and Moore if you are angry with Iraqis who wish to discuss and debate their constitution.
Catching my eye: morning A through Z Here’s what’s caught my eye this morning: Austin Bay’s Iraqi friend comments on the Iraqi constitution. Contra his friend’s claim, the U. S. Constitutional Convention convened May 25, 1787 and adjourned September 17, 1787 s…
Trackback by The Glittering Eye — 8/20/2005 @ 2:08 pm
Are We Rushing The Iraqi Constitution? I wonder sometimes: is the US making a mistake in holding the Iraqi constitution writers’ feet to the fire to keep them on schedule? Austin Bay’s correspondent, writing as The Iraqi, points out that it took five years to create…
Trackback by The Bernoulli Effect — 8/20/2005 @ 2:13 pm
He has a point. The United States had similar bickering problems all through the War of Independence, and a great deal of independence for the various states was enshrined in the first national constitution. The Constitution of 1787 was arrived at quickly and efficiently in part because the delegates had had 12 years of bickering states an an ineffectual central government, and they knew they absolutely had to run a bit roughshod over all the conflicting interests to get a strong national government that would allow the country to survive. It may be the Iraqis do not yet have enough bitter experience of the cost of failing to achieve a basic national cohesivity to set aside their differences, which, while nontrivial, are not so big that after 10 years of hellish civil war and interference by outsiders they might not consider them well worth sacrificing for the common good.
Comment by Carl Pham — 8/20/2005 @ 10:42 pm
Well, from the US perspective our original national arrangement (Articles of Confederation) was a botch-up, and we managed to get through it. France has been through a large number in that time, and there’s the old joke about libraries filing the Italian constitution under “periodicals.” If the main debate in Iraq in five years is over the construction of Islam in their consitution, then we can probably call it a “win” for Iraq and the world.
Comment by the snob — 8/21/2005 @ 1:53 am
The most important thing is that the US had Articles of Confederation, first. Which allowed Mass. to put taxes on products from “foreign” New York, and vice versa. A 5 or 10 year “easy amendment” process, to allow voters to change “mistakes” would be better than continuing with the Transitional Authority. Switzerland is about the most successful, and peaceful, European country — WITH tribal - cantons (4 languages, 2 big religions). Cantons and local autonomy are not such a big problem. If the main federal issue is the oil revenue, revenues should be in an OIL trust, with every citizen (every voter?) getting their share. Can keep other entitlements low.
Comment by Tom Grey - Liberty Dad — 8/21/2005 @ 2:45 am
If “The Iraqi” is a Sunni arab, he has a lot of nerve to criticize the constitutional process in Iraq. He should be out killing foreign arabs and cleaning out the criminals and Baathists instead of criticizing the courageous work the framers of the new constitution are doing. Ungrateful, pampered, Sunni arabs of Iraq, when will you ever do something worthwhile?
Comment by Arput Mehdi — 8/21/2005 @ 5:18 am
The US Constitutional Convention may have been in session for only four months but it took eleven years of horse trading to get representatives to a Convention. The main sticking point was Federalism. The rural, agricultural South was concerned with systemic domination by the more populous mercantile North. Two generations later we fought an ungodly civil war over the same issue. The Bill of Rights, which is what most people think of as the Constitution, had to be added as an amendment because the Convention drafters were not able to agree on what we now consider the most fundamental rights. Although it took several years to institutionlize, the Japanese Constitution was drafted over a single weekend by a 20-something Amercian female Army officer. France has had about seven constitutions although they have not killed each other in large numbers over them for about 200 years. This constitution thing is complicated business.
Comment by Peter Boston — 8/21/2005 @ 5:31 am
Iraq Constitution Update Austin Bay notes the perspective of an Iraqi friend on the proposed new Constitution. Not bad, but his friend gets at least one detail wrong: the Japanese Constitution was written al…
Trackback by Dean's World — 8/21/2005 @ 6:05 am
By attempting to enforce a deadline it looks to me as if the U.S. is applying corporate project management techniques where they may not be particularly appropriate. The intention may be to “get something down on paper”, however flawed, as a start to build on and refine later. Don’t forget, rhe U.S. Bill of Rights didn’t come about until after the initial constitution. The problem is convincing the parties to let go of their absolutism and trust the process. If they don’t get everything they want in the initial go, that doesn’t mean laws can’t be passed in the future - indeed what the constitution should provide most of all is an engine for producing future legislation, not a Koran-like edict that can never be changed.
Comment by frank — 8/21/2005 @ 7:33 am
With regards to post #1, we had an 11-year (roughly) run under the Articles of Confederation. Found out it didn’t quite work.
Comment by HaroldHutchison — 8/21/2005 @ 8:05 am
It is these voices that will make or break a successful transition from tyranny to legitimate self-governance in Iraq. A ferocious supporter of the Iraq War, I nevertheless totally understand Iraqi discomfort with a rushed Constitution and the dual purpose behind American demands for alacrity - a good job isn’t always a quick one. Americans’ analysis of the process is flawed due to a notoriously short attention span and an even shorter knowledge of history. The American Constitution, the product of an abortive Articles of Confederation and still the landmark of self-rule transferred to a single documented article, still resulted in a bloody civil war. There is nothing inherent in the document that can ensure domestic tranquility (to turn a phrase), despite best efforts. Better the time is taken to get this process right, obeisance to an arbitrary timetable will lead to far more trouble than simple patience will. MEC2
Comment by MEC2 — 8/21/2005 @ 10:40 am
The determining factors of success will not be how quickly or how carefully the Iraqi Constitution was crafted, but how well the document sets the foundation for a soveriegn state which provides liberty, justice, and security for its citizens. If a suitable framework is in place for amending the document, then some ill-considered sections can remain to be addressed at a later time, just as the U.S. addressed slavery, women’s sufferage, etc. after the initial constitution was ratified. The key will be the good will and faith of the various factions, will the Kurds attempt to secede in 20 years? Will the Shia’s try to become a sister (or daughter) state of Iran? Some analysis on what the current version of the constitution contains, and how complex it is as a document in general would be helpful in putting a valid context on how rushed the process is at this point.
Comment by Joel Mackey — 8/21/2005 @ 1:19 pm
All I can say is wow!!! We need to let them take thier time to create their constitution. I think everyone knows that all of this takes time and no one said it would be easy. Part of the problem is that the people in the United States want everyting now. We’ve all become rather impatient due to the good life we are living here in the States. I pray for our Iraqi friends and hope for the best for them and as President Bush says we need to stay the course. My prayers and hopes are with the Iraqi people. God bless you!
Comment by Kathy — 8/21/2005 @ 3:54 pm
People put things in a Constitution to make them hard to change. If the Iraqis want an Islamic Republic, it will be easy to mke one later. If they don’t, it will be pretty difficult to beconme free of one, once initiated. Did we really send thousands on young Americans, et al, to create an Islamic Republic? It sounds as though political haste, pushed along by some pro-Islamist State Department Wallahs, is about to throw away all that we’ve worked for and hoped to achieve for the past four years.
Comment by Michael Adams — 8/21/2005 @ 7:03 pm
"Iraqi Shiite, Kurdish Leaders Back Draft Charter; Sunnis Don't" From Bloomberg News:Iraq's Shiite political leaders prepared to send a draft constitution to the parliament later today while trying to persuade minority Sunnis to back the charter. Kurdish and Shiite Muslim leaders have agreed on the broad points…
Trackback by protein wisdom — 8/22/2005 @ 1:48 pm
Iraq Update Austin Bay notes the perspective of an Iraqi friend on the proposed new Constitution. His friend gets at least one detail wrong–the Japanese Constitution was written almost complete…
Trackback by Dean's World — 12/29/2005 @ 11:57 am