"The major sticking points [for completing a draft of Iraq’s new constitution] — the role of Islam in determining Iraqi law, issues of self-rule and regional autonomy, and the sharing of oil revenue in a federal context — put the goal of consensus beyond the reach of the governing coalition of Kurds and Shiites and the Sunni Arab minority. Yet a short delay while working on key disputes is far better than ramrodding through the National Assembly a constitution that would elevate clerical leadership to a political role in a future Iraqi society, and that would disadvantage women, especially in the area of family law" Fred Hiatt of the WashPost
A number of correspondents in Baghdad (where they mostly are) have commented since the delay was announced yesterday on the seriousness of this evidence of discord within the Iraqi "nation." The Washington Post editorial page evidently does not share this view. Too bad!
What the media corps in Baghdad is trying to tell people is that except for issues of government structure (1 president, 1 parliament, etc.) THERE IS NO AGREEMENT among the delegates to the constitutional convention in Baghdad on anything of real substance.
Why is that? Aren’t they all IRAQIS? Answers BELOW:
No, they are not, not in the sense that those who ask that question mean. Just about all of them will tell you that they are "all Iraqis together." Such responses are a natural reaction to the potentially dangerous questions of outsiders, but we are supposed to be smarter than to accept such statements at face value. It is true that there are and have been a fairly large class of people in Iraq who became over the decades since independence in the 20’s Iraqi nationalists. For these people community differences are less important than for the majority and for them, personal or community interests "rank" far below national interests, but they are and were always a minority, if a substantial one. Mr. Samara’i, a Sunni Arab, comes to mind. He describes himself as a "Sushi" because he is a Sunni and his wife is a Shia. There are many such. Unfortunately for their present influence on the process of government, most such people belonged either to the Baath Party (a secular Arab nationalist party) or to some similar group. In the presence of Shia religious party majorities in the political process, the effect of such people is minimal.
The majority of Iraqis are still more self-identifying with personal, clan, tribal and ethno-religious group interests than ahything else.
The Kurds are desparate to keep themselves as saparate as they can from Arab Iraq.
The religious Shia are busily trying to consolidate their power over as much of Iraq as they can while they still have American troop "cover" for their actions. If they can’t do that then they have shown their intention to establish a separate "autonomous" zone in the south.
The nationalist Sunni Arab guerillas and tribals remain insistent on "national unity," but they and their secular friends in the other communities were always the main defenders of "Iraq" as an idea.
The Zarqawi led international Jihadis are in a separate category. They are fighting their own war for their own goals and have little to do with the Iraq political process.
TEN DAYS? I just heard NBC in Baghdad say that there are 50 major issues unresolved.
WHY? Simple. Iraq was a post-colonial "work in progress" in terms of "nation building" when we invaded it. It was a "jar of worms" in terms of having a sense of nationhood. We unscrewed the lid on the jar and the worms are crawling around according to their own agenda, not ours.
The geo-strategic geniuses like Zalmai Khalilzad should have know that. He has always been a major advocate for the "creative" use of American power for world improvement. As an Afghan Pushtun and supposed Muslim he should have know better, but he and others did not and now he bears the burden of his own dreams.
"and that would disadvantage women, especially in the area of family law." Excuse me! Family and personal status law are just about invariably the areas of life reserved for Sharia or something close to Sharia law in Arab countries even ones that have mixed law codes (Western and Islamic).
The status of women? I have the disadvantage of having been to Iraq a lot in the "old days." I hasten to add that I went on US government business. I clearly remember the European born wife of an American ambassador telling me in response to my question on this issue that. "the problem modernized Iraqi women have now is that they are expected to do too much. They are expected to have professional careers, be perfect wives and mothers, and be ready to "pick up the slack" when their husbands start running around." I remember that the General Manager of the Rashid Hotel (the best in town) was a good looking, smart, skilled Iraqi woman in her late thirties. There were a lot like her.
Now the Shia majority in the government is going to "improve" her status.
Ten Days? We’ll see..
Pat Lang
Personal Blog: Sic Semper Tyrannis 2005 || Bio
to a question I posed yesterday in a comment here on another thread.
My question;
Pat Lang’s statement here;
My ongoing question in all this remains.
“Does anyone really think that this process in Iraq is going to lead to the creation of a constitutional document that enshrines any truly existential principles or characteristics that define a democratic approach to governance?
Don’t meet the new “Deadline”? Hey, I know, we will invade their country!
Here’s an interesting analysis/opinion posted Sunday 14 August, 2005 as a Guest Editorial by Andrew Arato of the New School University at juancole.com: A Transitional Permanent Constitution? Scroll down to it, I think it is germaine to the conversation. Juan’s reflections on the subject are, as always, worth the read.
Peace
The women and children will suffer the most. I certainly am not holding my breath. Bet old Dick is pissed though. Screws up the talking points for Karl and George just won’t know what the F to say at the next photo op session now will he?
Why a Constitution?
Israel has the Basic Law.
China has Four Principles.
The EU has a series of six treaties, and is a federation.
Iraq needs some basic statement of human dignity, and a process for power sharing. Iraq needs a currency, a bank, a police force, and integrated arms forces that connot be used against Iraqis. Why are we insisting on something as fundamentally American as inshrining a Constitution?
Has Bush ever in his life considered HIRING SOMEONE WITH EXPERTISE? ASKING THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS?
that would be “no”
sheesh.
Folks,
Rolling a few of these things together:
-I don’t think constitutions are worth much if there is not a national consensus which accepts the principles of the document. There is a lot of bitching these days about our 1789 Constitution (accepted the existence of slavery, did not enfranchise women or the propertyless, etc.) but in fact the document could only be ratified on the basis of COMPROMISE, something which these warring ethno-religious “nations” in Iraq are not capable of. Their divisions are too deep. Can you see something like “The Great Compromise” emerging in Iraq over Kurdish autonomy? Maybe, if the wording is “weaseled” enough to leave room for effective elimination in the end by the religious Shia.
-Women’s rights. I used to go to this place on government business a lot. The truth is that modernized Iraqi women had more in the way of civil and job rights than in most Arab countries, even places like Jordan or Tunisia, and I know them all. Let’s see what the draft constitution says about that!!
Pat Lang