Michael Barone, on the Iraqi constitution:
Many in mainstream media profess to be fearful that the constitution will lead to theocracy in Iraq. [Clinton administration Ambassador Peter] Galbraith, who has been scathingly critical of the Bush administration on many counts, and [former CIA agent and American Enterprise Institute scholar Reuel Marc] Gerecht, who has been critical on occasion also, disagree.
They make the point that Iraqis are not necessarily going to make the same constitutional and policy choices that Americans would. This is of course true of other democracies. Britain has an established Church of England, and the prime minister effectively (and the Queen formally) chooses the Archbishop of Canterbury. Canada provides public funding for Catholic and other religious schools. France bans girls from wearing headscarves in schools. Germany prohibits the publication of Nazi materials. We don’t do any of these things, and most Americans wouldn’t want to. But who would argue that Britain, Canada, France, and Germany are not acceptable representative democracies with acceptable levels of human rights? They just have different histories and different traditions, and have made different choices.
Some have argued that Iraq is a poor testing ground for democracy in the Middle East because it has multiple sects and ethnic groupsâ€â€the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds. But I think the multi-sect, multi-ethnic character of Iraq is actually helpful in forging an acceptable democracy. It forces constitution-makers to confront squarely the age-old dilemma of representative government, how to reconcile majority rule with minority rights. In a mono-ethnic, mono-sect state, or one in which one group is the overwhelming majority (Shiite Iran, Sunni Egypt), that issue doesn’t necessarily present itself, and you risk getting the tyranny of the majority that our own Founding Fathers strove to prevent.
Barone is correct, at least in theory: the additional wrangling necessary to bring the various ethnic groups to a workable compromise would almost certainly strengthen the document both structurally (how laws can proceed from it) and linguistically (how much “living” the constitution is capable of in the hands of a skilled “interpreter”); in practice, however, political time constraints—at least some of which have likely been driven by the Administration’s desire to silence war critics and the skeptical (at best) or hostile (at worst) international media by showing tangible and regular progress—make it difficult to come up with a document that is anything but overbroad in certain areas.
Still, that Galbraith and Gerecht are comfortable with the way Islam is insinuated into the document is a happy indicator that perhaps we’re looking at the type of constitution that could, if all goes well, act as a template for the many future constitutions for the myriad future democracies we hope will spread throughout the Muslim world.
There is simply no way that one could remove Islam from the overall moral mindset of the middle east when desiging their constitution anymore than one could removen the Judeo-Christian mindset from the development of the United States.
Iraq will have its secular Jeffersons who will fight to enforce the letter of the law and keep Shariah law from denigrating the rights of women and minorities. The one rarely talked about advantage with Iraqi society was that it was much more secular to begin with than many other Middle Eastern countries.
That doesn’t mean there won’t be losses in that fight either. I’m not pleased that “under God” is part of the United States National Pledge of Allegiance, because I believe it goes against the principle of seperation of Church and State. But I don’t feel the need to Jihad against that particular shortcoming either.
The one key phrase that needed to be in the Iraqi constitution for me to call Operation Iraqi Freedom a success is there-
“Article (14): Iraqis are equal before the law without discrimination because of sex, ethnicity, nationality, origin, color, religion, sect, belief, opinion or social or economic status.”
The rest is up to them. As others point out, the constitution is just a piece of paper with words written on it, it’s how that constitution is utilized that makes it important.
Your Friday Morning Constitutional
Thanks, I feel better already.
Bad news and controversies sell newspapers and air time. Don’t hold your breath waiting for the 6:00 news to put a happy face on anything out of Iraq or the GWOT. You’ll fall right over.
Yea man, they are almost there, just need to skirt this potentially sticky civil war scenario and everyone can start breating again.
I just have to point out that I am not a pooh-pooher AWG. I take the larger view –
I’m actually more optimistic about an outcome than, say, Timothy Garton Ash in Stanford:
It’s an interesting take for me since my great-grandfather fought in the Boer War. As an aside, he fought ‘em and and then married ‘em. Like his enemy commander’s daughter, and both sides went to the wedding. Go figure? What’s a war for really?
or breathing even
Tman: excellent points. The next time I hear someone claim that an Iraqi constitution which includes Islam in any form is a personal failure by Bush, I’ll pull out a dollar bill and ask ‘em about the “In God We Trust” inscription.
Mr. Washington? Your constitution and this experiment in democracy? Utter failure. You included a portion of your Christian heritage and thus it’s all been a sham and a collossal waste of time.
BECAUSE OF THE BELIEFS!
(Disclosure: I’m an athiest and agree with Tman’s 3rd paragraph completely)
QUAGMIRE!! QUAGMIRE!! QUAGMIRE!!
(soon to be WE’RE CUTTING AND RUNNING!! as Iraqi troops take over and our troops come home)
While I would certainly not wish it on anyone, a civil war is also not an insurmountable obstacle in the creation of a strong republic.
Giggity-giggity-giggity!
It’s astounding to me how often people rely on what is quite clearly a sensationalist and pessimistic media to form their entire opinion of how things are going on the ground in Iraq, then turn around and cite the very things that formed their opinion in the first place as proof that their opinions are correct.
For instance, anyone who reads the Guardian regularly is sure to think the US is an imperialist power fighting an illegal war they had predetermined to fight; hence, it is hardly surprising that Timothy Garton Ash would parrot back to the Guardian his knowing repetition of the narrative the way they’ve framed it—only now, it’s been assimilated epistemologically and comes off as “knowledge” he shares with those who provided him the info to begin with.
This is why the framing of the narrative is so important, and why an adversarial media—as it’s grown more ubiquitous—makes it more difficult for western powers to fight wars.
Luckily, however, the blogosphere is providing other outlets for the framing of information, which is acting as a pressure release valve; Iraq will not turn into Vietnam, no matter how much the journos who cut their teeth on that war (and have trained their successors in the practice of anti-war framing and sensationalism) wish it to.
Fuck Chuck Hagel. And, pace what some on the left are saying (“Egads! Suddenly the Rethugs hate Hagel!”), I’ve been saying that for some time. Do a site search.
Hagel is a Libertarian who runs as a Republican. That press trots him out—along with “maverick” John McCain, precisely when they break from the party line. It’s manipulative and cynical, but it’s hardly surprising.
And not nearly so optimistic as Victor Davis Hanson. Still, I must commend you for acknowledging that success in Iraq is possible, rather than joining the chorus of “giggity-giggity”s from the Iraq-is-a-quagmire crowd. That acknowledgement, however, doesn’t redeem your Saddam apologitics or your besmirchment of the effort in Iraq generally, and neither does calling those “a larger view”.
Major Developments in Iraq
Major Sunni and Shi’ite Demonstrations Against Iraqi Constitution
No don’t tell me, I’m keen to guess…
Muqtada “Lumpy” al-Sadr and the Muslim Scholars terrorist front group?
Hey, I must be psychic, huh?
SB: programs
Can’t tell the players apart without ‘em…
If this National Assembly does not have the mindset required to produce a meaningful Iraqi constitution, then it is best to dissolve and re-elect the assembly than settle for a prop. It is more important to get it right, than to get it “right now.â€Â
As Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari noted, “We should not be hasty regarding the issues and the constitution should not be born crippled.†The constitution must be meaningful – a living, breathing document that can be a foundation for the long road towards a real democracy in a united Iraq.
Jeff:
Chuck Hagel is a Libertarian? I don’t often have reason to doubt your observations, but this one doesn’t line up, for me.
Would you expound and enlighten, a little. Call me curious, as I’ve never been able to figure out Hagel’s governing philosophy. Thanks.
This might help (scroll to the bottom).
Interesting site. Thanks.
Here is a non-neocon take on the matter. Frankly I think that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, a waste of “blood and treasure.” Quite frankly it was a stupid move. I fail to see how it made us safer. And yes, it was an act of imperialism.
Mr. Jeff Goldstein begs to differ. I am curious what type of conservative Mr. Goldstein is. Well, he hates Chuck Hagel, denouncing him as a “Libertarian.” Too bad Chuck Hagel is not a (big L) Libertarian. He is a classic conservative dedicated to small government, balanced budget, fiscal responsibility, and preserving individual rights; a conservative with libertarian leaning stances. After all, Reagan said that libertarianism is the heart of conservatism. It is obvious that Jeff Goldstein is a fanatical neoconservative. Jeff’s political ideals are not classical conservative values. Rather his Republican Platform is Israel-first.
And lest anyone accuse me of “anti-Semitism” a smear which has been overused to the point of meaninglessness. I am not accusing Jeff Goldstein of being Israel-first because he has a Jewy name (and thus is probably Jewish). Many American Jews are patriots loyal to the United States. Not all Jews are Zionists, some are in fact anti-Zionist. And of those Jews who are Zionists, not all subscribe to the more radical variant of the ideology. After all, wanting Israel to be a safe haven is a far cry from calling for an ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians or “Jewish lebensraum” (Greater Israel). There is a difference from mainstream Zionists and Zionazis. Not to mention, not all Zionists are Jewish, and some of the more rabid Zionazis are dispensationalist Christian fundies.
That said, Jeff Goldstein clearly belongs to the Israel-first neocon wing of American politics where principled conservatives like Chuck Hagel are “Libertarian RINO” politicians, because “true conservatives” apparently put Israel first. There is no denying that the US foreign policy is aligned with an extremist Zionist agenda. Please explain to me, Mr. Goldstein, why if America is in a glorious crusade against extremist-fanatical-fundamentalist-radical-reactionary Islam or “Islamism” did we go to Iraq? After trying to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan (an actual Islamist regime who at least harbored the terrorist group responsible for the 9/11 attacks), we turned away from that theatre to target Iraq, a nation having nothing to do with the attacks, led by the secular Saddam Hussein. Not to defend the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein, but one could say in his defense that though he was a repressive fascist, Saddam Hussein was a secular fascist. So, at least an iron-fist Ba’athist rule kept the Islamo-fascists at bay.
Why did we go after non-Islamo-fascist Iraq, when we continue to be allies with reactionary Islamist Saudi Arabia, where the fundamentalist Wahabbist sect dominates? Is it perhaps because Saddam Hussein and the secular Ba’ath Party are enemies of Israel, whereas the Israelis do not consider Saudi Arabia as a big threat. If anything, our “ally” helped Al Quaeda. The logical next step from Afghanistan would have been Saudi Arabia. (Not saying we SHOULD have gone there instead. It is not like the Saudi royal family personally funded bin Laden.) But Iraq has nothing to do with it! And if the Guardian claims the United States is an imperial power, they are right! You may not know this, but the Guardian is a British publication. If anybody would know an empire when they see one, it would be the British. The British had a global empire for a couple centuries. America was an imperial power for over a century.
Finally, I find it ironic that you would lump McCain in with Hagel, when John McCain is the most fervent neoconservative around. He is at least as loyal to Mother Israel as your god, George W. Bush.