Constitution Watch: The birth of "democracy" in Iraq

[yolland]

Philadelphia 1787 vs. Baghdad 2005
Bush's lousy analogy
By Fred Kaplan
Friday, Aug. 19, 2005
slate.com


When things go particularly badly in Iraq—anarchy, insurgency, and now the delays in crafting a constitution—President George W. Bush and his top aides point reassuringly to the turbulence surrounding our own Founding Fathers' exertions to forge a republic.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld first sought solace in history back in March 2003, only weeks after Saddam Hussein was toppled. America in the 1780s, he noted, was marked by "chaos and confusion … crime and looting … popular discontent." "Our first effort at a governing charter—the Articles of Confederation—failed miserably," he added, "and it took eight years of contentious debate before we finally adopted our constitution and inaugurated our first president."

President Bush picked up on the theme, in nearly identical terms, in a speech just last May: "The American Revolution was followed by years of chaos. … Our first effort at a governing charter, the Articles of Confederation, failed miserably. It took several years before we finally adopted our Constitution and inaugurated our first President. … No nation in history has made the transition from tyranny to a free society without setbacks and false starts."

In other words, so this argument goes, the United States of America took 11 years to go from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution; therefore, don't be surprised that Iraq is still writhing a mere two years after the fall of Saddam—or that the delegates to its constitutional convention are experiencing difficulties.

There's something to this, of course, but why does Bush keep bringing it up? Far from easing our concerns about Iraq (ah, well, this is just how things go in the transition to democracy), comparing its plight with that of late 18th-century America—and likening the roundtable in Baghdad's Green Zone to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia—should only intensify the hackles and horrors.

The real inference to be drawn is that the American colonies were as well-fit for a democratic union as any society in human history—and they took more than a decade to get their act together. Today's Iraq enjoys almost none of their advantages, so how long will it take to move down the same path—and how long will we have to stay there to help?

Let us count just a few of the obstacles.

A major dispute at both constitutional conventions was how to divide power between the central government and the regional provinces. But in the American case, the provinces—i.e., states—were well-established political units, with governors, statutes, and citizens who identified themselves as, say, New Yorkers or Virginians. There are no comparable authorities, structures, or—in any meaningful sense—constituents in Iraq's regions (except, to some degree, in the Kurdish territories, and many people there want simply to secede).
America's Founding Fathers shared the crucible of having fought in the Revolutionary War for the common cause of independence from England. This bond helped overcome their many differences. Iraq's new leaders did not fight in their war of liberation from Saddam Hussein. It would be as if France had not merely assisted the American colonists but also fought all the battles on the ground, occupied our territory afterward, installed our first leaders, composed the Articles of Confederation, and organized the Constitutional Convention. The atmosphere in Philadelphia, as well as the resulting document and the resulting country, would have been very different.
America had a natural first president in George Washington, the commanding general and unblemished hero of the Revolutionary War. Amid the climate of political brawls and duels that make current tabloid fare seem tame, Washington was the one figure who could not be criticized, whose decisions were accepted by all. Had Washington rejected politics and retired to his estate, the union—and the Constitution that enshrined it—would have fallen apart. Perhaps if Ahmad Chalabi—the Pentagon's handpicked Washington wannabe—had led a few brigades into Baghdad, his prospects would have brightened.
Among America's Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton aligned the principles of the Constitution with the Enlightenment tenets of property, law, and individual rights. Islam may not be incompatible with democracy, but Locke and Montesquieu take you there more directly.
Sectarianism did not exist in early America. Yes, there were sharp regional differences between mercantile New England and the agrarian South, as well as moral splits over slavery. But no groups exacerbated these tensions by asserting an exclusive claim on God.
Early America saw armed revolts, notably Shays' Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion. But they were protests led by debt-ridden farmers against rising taxes—not pervasive or murderous insurgencies against the entire established order. They were also put down fairly promptly—Shays' by a state militia, the Whiskey Rebellion by a mere show of government force.
There is one comparison between the two conventions that holds out some hope for Iraqi prospects—if they manage it shrewdly.

The Philadelphia convention nearly broke down over the issue of slavery—just as the Baghdad roundtable may do so over the question of Islamic law. The Southern American states were so dependent on slavery that their delegates (who were almost all slave-owners) refused even to negotiate over the practice's survival.

In Iraq, many Shiites—who have finally acquired the power that goes with majority status—insist that Islam assume a central role in the new nation's social and political life. This idea is bitterly opposed by Sunnis, who feel suddenly disempowered, and the northern Kurds, who tend to be more secular and who have grown accustomed to autonomy.

The American delegates punted their problem by agreeing that no amendment to ban slavery would be so much as considered until at least 1808. Some observers are now suggesting that the Iraqis do much the same with the question of Islamic law—defer the issue until later and, meanwhile, let each region or province find its own way.

There are those who oppose a deferral, noting that the Philadelphia evasion unraveled, triggering the Civil War of 1861-65. I would say this: If the Baghdad delegates hammer out a deal that might spark an Iraqi civil war 74 years from now, they should sign it at once. The bigger worry—which Bush's analogies to the American Constitution do nothing to address—is how to avoid civil war in the coming months.


Fred Kaplan writes the "War Stories" column for Slate.

 

[Teta040]

Much obliged Yolland. For future ref, how do I do that?

I'll be back Monday...this above should give Dreadsox and STING2 at least some food for thought. Here's hoping the draft of the Constitution is online by Teus! I'll have a lot of time to post in the evenings.

 

[shart1780]

Well, they're definitely in better shape than before, and most of the Iraqi people are extremely happy about it.

Plus they were bound to have problems. It's not easy to take a completely tyranical society and turn it into a democracy.

 

[verte76]

The guy is right on the money. It's pointless to compare colonial America and present-day Iraq. At the rate they're going they may never get a constitution.

 

[Tennis05]

I wouldn't put this in the hands of soldiers though. you said that "our troops in the Red Zone" didn't remember how democracy started over here. remember, the military is a tool. it is following orders. they don't get a say in how Bush approaches Iraq.

 

[Dreadsox]

[Q]The American delegates punted their problem by agreeing that no amendment to ban slavery would be so much as considered until at least 1808. Some observers are now suggesting that the Iraqis do much the same with the question of Islamic law—defer the issue until later and, meanwhile, let each region or province find its own way.[/Q]

This may be the best parallel in the article.

 

[Teta040]

Hey, Dreadsoz. take a look at the Impeachment Tour thread. A Wanderer has posted your answer to this question.....

I agree with Henry the K. I smell disaster in the works.....

You guys: since I am technologically impaired, if I'm not on here early enough, can someone post the text of the Constitution when it goes up? Much appreciated....

and Yolland, here's another great Washington Post article....

"Militias Hold Sway in IraQ nORTH AND sOUTH"

from Washingtonpost.com

 

[Teta040]

Wow..delays again,,the Sunnis are pissed off.. are we surprised?

 

[deep]

The American delegates punted their problem by agreeing that no amendment to ban slavery would be so much as considered until at least 1808. Some observers are now suggesting that the Iraqis do much the same with the question of Islamic law—defer the issue until later and, meanwhile, let each region or province find its own way.

Wow, what wisdom!

I have often heard that this great nation, the founding fathers and all, were "divinely inspired" .

Well that is proof "one nation under god".

 

[Judah]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/20/i...00&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

You know it's a big pile of manure when the Americans have to offer solutions that enshrine Sharia Law supremacy on some matters (such as family law...women should be worried). Ah well, maybe some ex-Talibanese will like the new-look Iraq.

"According to the Kurdish leader, the secular Iraqis had pushed for language that would have narrowed the circumstances under which legislation would be deemed to be in conflict with Islam. And, according to the Kurd, the secular Iraqis had wanted marriage and family disputes to be adjudicated by civil courts, not by clerics.

""Your American ambassador is giving an Islamic character to the state," the Kurdish leader said. "You spent all this money and all this blood to bring an Islamic republic here."

""We are very worried," he said."

 

[Irvine511]

The guy is right on the money. It's pointless to compare colonial America and present-day Iraq. At the rate they're going they may never get a constitution.

yes.

and it seems so hypocritical for people to invoke some historical parallels (Iraq = America, circa 1783), yet piss and moan about others (i.e., Iraq = Vietnam, circa Tet Offensive)

 

[Judah]

Looks like they made it under in time for the deadline (though the Sunni's aren't on board):

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/22/iraq.main/index.html

And the constitution says "Islam will be main source of legislation" as opposed to "Islam's Shariah will be main source of legislation." We'll see if that makes a difference.

 

[financeguy]

And the constitution says "Islam will be main source of legislation" as opposed to "Islam's Shariah will be main source of legislation." We'll see if that makes a difference.

Ok so maybe women will only have to wear burqas and not be allowed to drive cars, etc, rather than the full-on Sharia of women (and men) being executed for impure thoughts, listening to non-Islamic music, dancing, etc. Marvellous, isn't it?

 

[Judah]

Ok so maybe women will only have to wear burqas and not be allowed to drive cars, etc, rather than the full-on Sharia of women (and men) being executed for impure thoughts, listening to non-Islamic music, dancing, etc. Marvellous, isn't it?

Yeah...remains to be seen...depends what kinda fundamentalist men are in charge, i suppose. There are many Muslim countries where it's not that hardcore for women (i.e. Pakistan, Iran, Malaysia, etc., where they don't have to wear burqas or can drive, hold public office, etc.).

 

[BonosSaint]

Not exactly the promise we made the Iraqi women, was it? Maybe just a little less servitude. I bet they're ready to throw flowers at our feet.

But, hey, it's just the women.

"All the promises we make" are just "dust in the wind" to mix my metaphors.

 

[Judah]

Remember, for many of these countries/peoples the treatment of women is cultural, not religion based. When it first came in, Islam was supposed to offer a lot more liberation for women. As this paragraph states [http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/1219/p12s2-wogi.html]:

"The Arabian Peninsula in the 7th century was not an easy place for women when Islam took root there. They were seen as chattel and traded as war booty. The Koran gave them rights to education, satisfaction in marriage, divorce, property ownership, and an inheritance. English women would wait another 1,100 years before gaining similar property rights."

Of course, Islam and its leaders haven't done much to educate their followers to be more liberal in their interpretation of Islam, to keep up with modern times (much like some other religions). And, of course, it's in men's interest (yes, it's all men) to interpret Islamic teachings and incorporate them in their countries' laws in a manner that keep women subjugated.

But, ack, I don't wanna get into defending the religion. I'm an Islamic apostate, and freakin' proud of it.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I don't think that this is the blueprint for a hardline Sharia state, I do not like it that Islam has such a primary role but it seems like a neccessity to keep the country united under a single government.

One may hope that the establishment of federalism as well as the preservation of democracy and human rights will be able to temper the new Iraq over it's first few decades.

 

[all_i_want]

I don't think that this is the blueprint for a hardline Sharia state, I do not like it that Islam has such a primary role but it seems like a neccessity to keep the country united under a single government.

One may hope that the establishment of federalism as well as the preservation of democracy and human rights will be able to temper the new Iraq over it's first few decades.

it actually is more about keeping the shiites happy than the country united. the kurds dont want sharia, hell, not even the sunnis want it. how is this keeping the country united?

and the thing about federalism is that it WILL lead to the disintegration of the country in the future. once the kurds and shiites start officially governing themselves, they will not want to stay together.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Keeping the shiites happy is part of keeping the country united.

If federalism can be mutually beneficial and each group has a vested interest in remaining part of the country then it could work. It is a much better option than keeping the country held together by brute authoritarian force.

The only judge of Iraq will be time and effort, how it fares when the US is out of there.

 

[all_i_want]

keeping the country together could only be achieved through mutual compromise. shiites will not compromise on sharia, because they believe it is god's will etc. a constitution that emphasizes the shiite interests but overlooks the concerns of the other two groups will not succeed in the long run.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I think that thats a generalisation about the Shiites, Sistani has proven to be relatively effective in maintaining a moderate front for the Shiite religious groups ~ with a Bill of Rights full blown Sharia law should be impossible to implement.

The biggest obstacle is this post-totallitarian stress disorder among these groups that leads to an aversion to centralisation and in some cases secular governance.

 

[all_i_want]

sistani is a cleric, but he is playing his hand very well. he is moderate enough for the US to deal with, which is in his interest if he wants to lead the shiites in the new iraq.

as for the bill of rights.. sharia is taken very literally by the shiites: the word of god. do you think the clerics would let it be overruled by the bill of rights? if islam is designated as the source for legislation in iraq, that means clerics are the real legislators-since they are the ones to interpret the meanings of the kuran.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Possiblly true, but I need to study the whole document when it is translated.

 

[all_i_want]

so, the result will resemble something awfully close to iran. a "democracy" ruled by the clerics, by "god's authority". seeing that iran is trying to get nuclear weapons themselves and is considered a part of the "axis of evil", one wonders why US bothered to enter iraq in the first place if this was supposed to be the end result.

in a nutshell: as a result of this constitution, iraqis will only be as free as iranians. that isnt much, and the result isnt really worth 200 billion dollars or thousands of lives.

 

[all_i_want]

for additional context: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1554716,00.html

a translation of the draft.

 

[Teta040]

Thanks, All I Want, you beat me to it. The NY Times has published the draft too.

"It only gives the Iraqis to be as free as Iranians", that's the best comment I've seen all day...touche. I actually agree with you on this Glad we are of the same opinion on Iraq anyway! (BTW I stopped replying in your Armenian scholar thread b/c Armenian history is just too damn depressing at times....I think we can agree that I hope that situation will end on a satisfactory note for all parties invlolved? Can we call a truce on that issue at least?)

The bottom line is: The US is aping Britain, its role model in things like this. They want to back whoever is the strongest faction on the ground right now b/c they have an immediate goal of keeping law and order. It is interesting that Henry Kissinger in his article stressed a noncomittal to a troop pullout right now b/c he warned that once the process is started it would feed upon itself and be unreversable, b/c of public opinion. But we are already slave to public opinion...everything is being done according to a timetable, they are looking over their shoulder at the polls back home.

If you ask me, I'd say that although nobody in the Bush camp wants to yet admit it, this is all being done according to Cindy Sheehan's timetable. And they'd shoot themselves in the foot before they ever admit that.

I'd say they're trying to create a kinder, gentler Suadi Arabia.,..a country where the Shiities hold sway. But they ignore one crucial diff: the Americans went into SA with their oil companes after the conwqiuest was over. The Sudis did the dirty work and pacified the state before we moved in. This time, America is doing the conquest.

 

[all_i_want]

Thanks, All I Want, you beat me to it. The NY Times has published the draft too.

"It only gives the Iraqis to be as free as Iranians", that's the best comment I've seen all day...touche. I actually agree with you on this Glad we are of the same opinion on Iraq anyway! (BTW I stopped replying in your Armenian scholar thread b/c Armenian history is just too damn depressing at times....I think we can agree that I hope that situation will end on a satisfactory note for all parties invlolved? Can we call a truce on that issue at least?)

The bottom line is: The US is aping Britain, its role model in things like this. They want to back whoever is the strongest faction on the ground right now b/c they have an immediate goal of keeping law and order. It is interesting that Henry Kissinger in his article stressed a noncomittal to a troop pullout right now b/c he warned that once the process is started it would feed upon itself and be unreversable, b/c of public opinion. But we are already slave to public opinion...everything is being done according to a timetable, they are looking over their shoulder at the polls back home.

If you ask me, I'd say that although nobody in the Bush camp wants to yet admit it, this is all being done according to Cindy Sheehan's timetable. And they'd shoot themselves in the foot before they ever admit that.

I'd say they're trying to create a kinder, gentler Suadi Arabia.,..a country where the Shiities hold sway. But they ignore one crucial diff: the Americans went into SA with their oil companes after the conwqiuest was over. The Sudis did the dirty work and pacified the state before we moved in. This time, America is doing the conquest.

Yeah, sure, lets call a truce. After the last ruling the guy will be free to leave Armenia at the end of August anyway. So its a pretty satisfactory solution

I knew we were in the same camp on Iraq, I am really curious what 'the supporters of freedom and democracy' would think about the recent developments.

Still, I think we could find other things to agree on in addition to 'war and destruction is bad'

 

[A_Wanderer]

Michael Leden raised some very good points on the matter.

I've been reading the Italian press on the Iraqi constitution, and some of the smarter commentators point out some things I think we've missed. First, there is hardly a country in the region without some language acknowledging Sharia as either "the" or "a major" basis for national legislation. But Iran, for example, says that Allah is the sole source of authority, while the Iraqi constitution says that the people are the only legitimate source of authority. This in itself is a revolutionary event. Big celebrations were under way among Kurds and Shi'ites, when the 3-day holiday was announced. These celebrations included lots of women, happy with the Bill of Rights that guaranteed freedom of religious choice, freedom for minorities, etc. The new constitution makes Iraq a Federal Republic, NOT an "Arab Republic," which is again revolutionary. And the federal nature of the new republic is revolutionary for the whole region. My favorite newspaper, il Foglio, comments: "All the neighboring countries (Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia) and also more distant ones (Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and Algeria) have trouble facing the spread of a democratic Iraq, of a Constitution born from true multiparty elections, and now a new innovation has been added: the...decentralization of power."

 

[all_i_want]

mark my words: mere words in the constitution will not hold back the religious leaders of that country.
'decentralization of power' will lead to this republic's demise.. youve heard it here first.

here is the scenario:

a few years after iraqi insurgency was quelled and the situation stabilized, the shiite majority, led by influential clerics, starts to push for a greater role for religion in the state affairs, introducing a new batch of laws in compliance the to islamic law. after a few months the push becomes intolerable to the mostly secular kurds in the north, and the northern iraq (the kurd governed region) decides to break away from the federal republic. with the loss of rich oil fields around kirkuk and mosul in sight, the republic tries to coerce the kurds into compliance. the iraqi army walks into the northern iraq to secure the oil fields, faces fierce resistance from the kurdish militia that has been fostered under self ruling. as fighting gains pace, the sunni minority, which has never quite recovered from saddam's downfall, takes its chances to launch an offensive against the republic.

meanwhile, concerned about a break-away kurdish state just next to her, turkey deploys troops along the southern border. with the iraqi army's failure to reclaim the oil fields in the north, turkish army enters northern iraq to intervene. syria and iran, also concerned about the creation of a kurdish state, get pulled into the conflict. hell breaks loose.


how does that sound for a future?

 

[Teta040]

Yes, All I Want, you hit one of the nails on the head. That is a very likely scenario. But even without such developments, there are other issues that could tick Turkey off. (Turkiye? What's the correct spelling? I like the second better--if I were Turkish I'd be ticked off at my country's name!)

I finally got the chance to read the Constitution (rough draft) last night. It's one of the most confusing things I've ever read. I've deliberately not read any commentary on it either. In addition to such doosies as the "region" laws, there's the potentially expolsive matter of languages.

Here are some of my faves:

Article 66: A presidential candidate should:

1. Be Iraq and the offspring of 2 Iraqi parents. ....

3. Have a good reputation and political experience, and be known as honest and faithful to the nation.

In the US, no foreign-born is permitted to run for or serve as President. We don't care about the parents though. You can be President and have one or both parents born elsewhere, as long as you were born here it's OK.(There have been 5 attempts in the 20th century alone to change this law, and there may be a 6th...many Republicans woukd like to see Arnold Schwartznaegger run for Pres..though it's unlikely the law will ever be overturned if all the others failed.) Why the emphasis on Iraqi parents? And political experience? How do you define that? Personally, I'd rather elect a guy with 25 yrs yrs as a mere county judge and a rep for being a well-respected figure liked by everybody in his community, than a guy who was a despised general or provincial president who the other party was grooming for the top job. Technically, anyone can run for President here. Look again, at Arnold....he was an actor! And by many counts, he has not done half-bad in California.) And show me an honest politican and I'll convert to Islam ...

Article 114:

2.A province or more has the the right to set a region according to a referendum called for in one of two ways:.......

--b. A demand by one tenth of the voters of the provinces that aim to set up a region.

You may as well hold up a giant sign saying: THOU SHALT SECEDE! No wonder the Kurds are dancing in the streets!!
As for the term "region"....there should be NO LANGUAGE in the constitution about "regions" at all. "Region" is a wonderfully ambiguous term that could mean anything from a semi-autonomous province with a weak local gov't that reports to a string central gov't with ultimate control over its sovereignity, to an American-style "state" with its own capital, flag, governor etc but functions just like an American state...it's "nationality" being in name only; to a fully fledged mini-country or secede state ovber which the weak central gov't is in name only. And that's the whole issue here: just what IS a region? If you ask me, the writers of this thing do not envsion a single Iraq at all, but are only adhering to their own personal agendas. Maybe the reason why we're still togehter is that there's no language about "states rights" and the country has just had to f#$&g well live with that!

The language laws are the most interesting. It's the kind of "fine print" issue that nobody looks much at, at the time; and it's snuck in without much comment, but down the road it could turn into the biggest pain in the rear of all.

Article 2:

...4:

b. The language used orally in offical institutions such as the Parliament and the Cabinet as well as official conventions should be one of the 2 languages (Arabic or Kurdish).

c. Recognising the offical documents in the 2 languages.

d. Opening the schools with 2 languages.

Right now, in the U.S, bilingual education is an explosive issue in areas such as California, Florida and other places where Spanish-speakers have displaced whites as the dominamt polulation demographic. There is heavy pressue by Republican governors and educators, and even some Democrats, to outlaw bilingual education in the primnary schools and replace it with English-only instruction. Here, it is a mere academic issue; an issue of whether or not having students learn in English helps them to assimilate into American society and move up the educational and income ladder faster. Those who are for it, argue that students learn faster if they have a right to use their home language in schools.

In Iraq, this would be a different story. The prohibition of certain languages from schools and government places could turn into a nationalistic issue...esp if a territory has voted itself into a "region." I am sure that there would be many ethnic Turks (I assume these are the "Turkomens") who would object (to put it mildly) at Turkish being benend from the schools and the halls of power. The step to assimilation is a kind of cultural genocide by the ruling powers at destroying "inferior languages" of others. The Irish in 19th-century Ireland knew this well, even before the Famine. Hence, the "hedge-row teachers" back then; and hence, the new law that road signs in non-"touristy" areas shoulld be in Gaelic only.Even though there is no immindent threatof national breakup (as there may have been during the Famine), 150 yrs later it is STILL an important enough issue to merit such a law. And consider what is happening to Welsh. In a few yrs, Welsh will dosppear as a spoken language. And that's the end of Wales as a politcal entity, isn't it? As for Scotland..it's east to think of it is "part of Britain" b/c nobody speaks Gaelic in Scotland anymore.


Language is not just the spoken tongue; it is the preserver of cultural identity. The national history of stories, poems, songs,etc is a part of this. Kill the language and you kill the culture; and thus, your grandchildren's identity as being the same thing you are.

Make Turkish outlawed outside the home in Kurdistan, (or Armenian anywhere else in Iraq, for example--every System of a Down fan knows that a sizeable percentage of the Christian population is of that ethnic group) and efventually, children would nolt be taught in lessons that there were ever Turks or Kurds or any other group ever inhabited that stretch of land. Therefore, any claim to territory could be disputed a few generations down the line. This sounds reidiculous, but consdier the explosive issue of Kurdish-language TV stations fomenting the activities of the PKK. Language is the catalyist from which all popular movments spring.

As for the halls of power, banning, say, Turkish or English is follw...I suppose English is exempted from this law? But as any call center operator in Banglaore can tel you, slaving away for $500 a month, it is VERY imporant. I'm sure English is not on the list. It;s the language of business too.

As as for women's rights....the 25% law is transitional..this is "transitional".....a disaster.