Good News From Iraq: A Constitution!

[Chandos the Red]

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

President Bush portrayed Iraqis’ vote on a new constitution as a victory for opponents of terrorism and a sign that the country was to moving toward a democracy.

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:

If the constitution is approved, Iraqis will choose a new parliament in Dec. 15 elections. Parliament then will select a new government, which must take office by Dec. 31.

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/

[NonSequitur]

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.

[Late-Night Thinker]

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...

[Aikanaro]

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

[Carcaroth]

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

[Chandos the Red]

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

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.

[Pac man]

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.

[Chandos the Red]

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."

[Mithrantir]

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.

[Cernak]

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

[Death Rabbit]

Ba-doom teesh!

[Chandos the Red]

And yet so many prefer Wisdom or Intelligence

Really...since when?

Since the main idea of this constitution is the Islamic beliefs (Saria), not too democratic.

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 ]

[NonSequitur]

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

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.

[SatansBedFellow]

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.

[Dranalis DeAealth]

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/mid...st/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.

[Chandos the Red]

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.

[Dranalis DeAealth]

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.

[Chandos the Red]

Nor can you simply ignore 20% of a given population because they are being inconvienient and rebellious.

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 ]

[Dranalis DeAealth]

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.

[Rallymama]

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.

[Bion]

A bit of a conundrum no? Not so easy to just say "mission accomplished," pull up stakes, and "let the Iraqis sort it out" when this sorting could easily be a civil war that makes the bloodshed up to this point look tame in comparison. I would agree with Juan Cole that one pragmatic solution might be to pull back the ground presence of coalition troops whenever possible in favor of the IP and ING, while maintaining the ability to provide significant air support when needed. Otherwise, it seems the "Sunni solution" (rather ominous choice of words) will require a careful balancing of politics and negotiation, as well as armed response, to separate those in the insurgency who can be reconciled with democracy from those who can't. And as Chandos points out, a suitably convincing Bill of Rights. It's hard to negotiate with a movement whose proposal is apparently the iron fisted rule of a minority.

And where I tend to disagree with Cole, who I always find valuable to read, is where he tries to compare the toll in lives in the insurgency with the toll in lives under the Baath party, as though that makes Baath rule not so bad. This seems to me to ignore that many of the civilian deaths have resulted from the Baathist insurgency, on one hand, and that, on the other, it's rather specious to equate what are frankly war conditions with other political conditions: like saying that slavery in the US wasn't bad because at least tens of thousands of people weren't dying every month or so in the Civil War...

But I can't help but think that the chronic incompetence of the Bush administration hasn't greatly aggravated the situation...

[Cúchulainn]

Providing air support is not a good idea. Thats how thousands of Iraqi civillians have been killed.

Best thing would be to to have support from other Muslim countries. All the foreigners will do is aggrivate people more (if thats even possible).

[Dranalis DeAealth]

The problem in that would be actually persuading Arab League members to commit troops into what appears currently to be something of a failing state. It would also invite nationalist resentment on the part of Iraqis, and possible political maneuvering on the part of any states which were prepared to commit, which would not be welcomed.

The Arab League was more than willing to commit to a defensive strategy during the first Gulf War, but there's no current reason why it should become embroiled in Iraq currently, as it's interests are not directly threatened.

[ October 26, 2005, 15:40: Message edited by: Dranalis DeAealth ]

[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.

Yes, actually you are disputing the foundations of democracy. I not sure which part of "majority rule" you're not grasping.

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.

Are you serious? There are always going to be minorities who reject an "entire framework of political debate," in a democracy. That is the nature of politics. Now, the political "process" is another matter. As Rally, points out, many in the minority refused to take part in the process. Many may see the American occupation as a taint on the process itself. One look at the document itself reveals that there are some problems, as I have already pointed out at the start of this thread.

As far as putting forth "an argument" in which there is a solution for a minority which spent the latter part of the 20th century oppressing the majority of the population, under a brutal tyrant, and are now blowing up innocent Iraqi people in the streets of their own country: Sorry, looks like you are in for a long wait. As someone who is interested to see if a real representative government can be achieved through a series political solutions in Iraq, (note: that I did not say it can be) I have little regard for the enemies of liberty.

[Dranalis DeAealth]

Yes, actually you are disputing the foundations of democracy. I not sure which part of "majority rule" you're not grasping.

I am disputing your bizzare assertions that an ethnic grouping as large as the Sunni community in Iraq can be ignored, and that Iraq can be considered a success as a result. Not even President Bush or Dr. Rice believes this; they at least want to enagage the Sunnis, even if that may be impossible for them to achieve.

The foundations of liberal democracy in the west is that all ethnic and religious groups within the polity should be enagaged with that polity; that they should have their rights protected to prevent mob rule on the part of the majority; and that all sections of the nation should work in relative harmony. You will note how sensitive we treat race relations in the west. If this is not the case, then you have a sub-par democracy or semi-democracy; something which is often called an "electoral democracy" in Political Science.

This is not about minority rule; I have never said it was, despite your totally unfounded assertions to the contrary. This is about having a minority which is politically active and works in harmony with other ethnic or religious groups within a society. This cannot possibly be considered to be the case today in Iraq.

You cannot - by definition - have stability, let alone a civil society or a political process which is anywhere near that in the west if this is not present.

As far as putting forth "an argument" in which there is a solution for a minority which spent the latter part of the 20th century oppressing the majority of the population, under a brutal tyrant, and are now blowing up innocent Iraqi people in the streets of their own country: Sorry, looks like you are in for a long wait.

I'm afraid I'm going to half to depart with you in your continued depiction of an entire ethnic grouping (In this case, Sunni Iraqi Arabs) as violent murderers with no legitimate political grievance. (Quite apart from whether or not this is against the rules of the forums, which I imagine it is, and which I may follow up if you continue in this vein. If this isn't against the rules, then it most certainly should be.)

[ October 26, 2005, 16:53: Message edited by: Dranalis DeAealth ]