Constitution Watch: The birth of "democracy" in Iraq - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-20-2005, 05:54 PM   #31
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 05:18 PM
Quote:
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.
__________________

__________________
yolland is offline  
Old 08-20-2005, 06:13 PM   #32
Refugee
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,435
Local Time: 04:18 PM
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.
__________________

__________________
Teta040 is offline  
Old 08-20-2005, 09:51 PM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Washington State
Posts: 3,861
Local Time: 04:18 PM
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.
__________________
shart1780 is offline  
Old 08-21-2005, 07:30 AM   #34
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 04:18 PM
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.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 08-21-2005, 07:49 AM   #35
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 143
Local Time: 04:18 PM
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.
__________________
Tennis05 is offline  
Old 08-21-2005, 08:07 AM   #36
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:18 AM
[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.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-21-2005, 10:20 AM   #37
Refugee
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,435
Local Time: 04:18 PM
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 is offline  
Old 08-22-2005, 10:58 AM   #38
Refugee
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,435
Local Time: 04:18 PM
Wow..delays again,,the Sunnis are pissed off.. are we surprised?
__________________
Teta040 is offline  
Old 08-22-2005, 11:18 AM   #39
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:18 AM
Quote:
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".
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 08-22-2005, 12:28 PM   #40
War Child
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 760
Local Time: 04:18 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/20/in...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."
__________________
Judah is offline  
Old 08-22-2005, 12:44 PM   #41
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 11:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.


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)
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 08-22-2005, 02:04 PM   #42
War Child
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 760
Local Time: 04:18 PM
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/...ain/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.
__________________
Judah is offline  
Old 08-22-2005, 02:08 PM   #43
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 05:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Judah
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?
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 08-22-2005, 03:18 PM   #44
War Child
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 760
Local Time: 04:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy



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.).
__________________
Judah is offline  
Old 08-22-2005, 03:30 PM   #45
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 12:18 PM
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.
__________________

__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com