From Rich Lowry, the Corner:
A cooler head following the process closely sends along these points about the Iraqi constitution, at least as of Sunday evening (it’s obviously a moving target):
—The Afghanistan Constitution contains strong Islam-based provisions, including a blanket provision saying: ‘In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.’ But the Afghan constitution also contains strong human rights protections and is facilitating the emergence of a peaceful and vibrant democracy.
--The Iraq draft appears to be similar. In addition to the broad bill of rights, our translation of the Islam provision states that ‘no law shall be enacted that contradicts [Islam’s] established provisions, the principles of democracy, [or] the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this constitution.’ This is actually a better formulation than Afghanistan’s model.
—The same provision also protects ‘all the religious rights of all individuals in the freedom of belief and religious practice’ – a provision consistent with international standards and identical to the widely praised Transitional Administrative Law (TAL), the interim constitution signed by the Iraq Interim Governing Council in 2004.
—In addition, Islam is declared to be ‘a’ – not ‘the’– source of legislation, a victory to secularists and roughly in line with the TAL formulation.
--Finally, we are confident that the final interpreters of the Iraqi constitution will be non-religious based courts and the elected legislature – not unelected clerics.
I heard something similar this morning on one of the news shows, the argument being that—yesterday’s fatalistic reportage aside (FOXNews’ William La Jeunesse, for instance, seemed to think the Iraqis had just codified women to perpetual second-class citizenship by allowing clerics to control family law)—the constitution is far more amenable to civil rights than was first reported, and in fact is a very Western document in terms of protecting freedoms and minority and women’s rights.
Here’s Lowry again:
Seems people in the administration still aren’t clear on exactly what’s happening on the ground during these negotiations. But I just talked to someone who has the sense that the Iraqis aren’t arguing about the role of Islam as much as we are here in the Corner. This person hears that a possible deal is coalescing around two issues: de-Baathification and federalism. The de-Baathification provision in the constitution might be taken out to get the Sunnis back on board. Instead, that issue would be dealt with legislatively. Then, the bar for a Shia autonomous zone in the south would be raised considerably, so the possibility is still there, but it will be much harder to achieve. For what it’s worth…
If Lowry’s sources are correct, these are important—and welcomed—developments. The threat from former Ba’athists is minimal (it is more of a threat now, in fact, insofar as many former Ba’athists are fighting with the insurgency; and so giving them at least the potential for a political say in the government, if they accept, both weakens the insurgency and draws the Sunnis closer to accepting the constitution.
Still, I’d like to see the finished document before I get too excited—and I stand by my earlier assessment that any timetable for completion of the document must necessarily be scrapped in favor of a document that will work to shape the country and its subsequent legislation.
And for what it’s worth, FOXNews’ Shep Smith is still characterizing the document as heavily Islamic and a disaster for women’s rights.
****
update: below the fold, selections from the Draft Constitution
The republic of Iraq is an independent sovereign state with a system of government that is republican, parliamentary, democratic and federal.
Islam is the official religion of the state, and it is a main source for legislation. No law can be passed that contradicts the fixed principles of Islam’s rulings. No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy. No law can be passed that contradicts basic rights and freedoms mentioned in this constitution.
This constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people, as well as complete religious rights for all individuals to freedom of beliefs and religious practice.
Iraq is a multi-ethnic and multi-religious country and it is part of the Islamic world, and the Arab people in it are part of the Arab nation.
The Arabic language and Kurdish language are the two official languages of Iraq, and the right of Iraqis to educate their children in mother tongues such as Turkmen and Syriac in government teaching establishments … or any other language in private institutions is guaranteed.
Federal institutions and bodies in the Kurdistan region will use the two languages.
The law has sovereignty, the people are the source of authorities and their legitimacy, and they practise this via direct secret ballot and their constitutional institutions.
Rotation of power is practiced peacefully via the democratic institutions outlined in this constitution.
All bodies or practices are forbidden which use racism, terrorism, denouncing people as non-Muslim, sectarian cleansing or which incite, prepare, praise, promote or justify them, in particular the Saddamist Baath party in Iraq under any name, which cannot be part of political pluralism in Iraq, and this will be organised by law.
The state will combat terrorism in all its forms and act to protect its borders from being used for terrorist activity.
Iraqi armed forces and security forces will be made up of all components of the Iraqi people without discrimation or marginalisation…
Military militias cannot be formed outside the framework of the armed forces.
The Iraqi government respects and implements Iraq’s international commitments preventing the spread, development, production and use of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons…
It is not allowed to detain or hold someone for questioning without a court order. All forms of physical or bodily torture or inhuman treatment are banned…
Parliament will sit for four years … elections for a new parliament will be held 45 days before the end of the current session.
Oil and gas are the property of all the Iraqi people in all regions and provinces.
The federal government manages oil and gas from current fields with the governments of the producing regions and provinces, and the resources should be distributed in a fair manner appropriate to the population balance around the entire country, with specific temporary allocations for regions damaged and unfairly neglected under the previous regime…
Federal government and governments of producing regions and provinces will together draw the necessary strategic policies to develop oil and gas wealth for the good of the Iraqi people…
A legislative Federal Assembly comprising representatives of regions and provinces for viewing draft laws concerned with regions and provinces. Law will organise its formation.
****
update 2: Others commenting: Brendan O’Leary, Publius, Michael J Totten, Tall Dave, Pej, Bill Roggio, Lump on a Blog, Dean Esmay, and LaShawn Barber.
There’s been a lot of caterwauling this week about Islam being “the source of law” in Iraq’s constitution, generally done alongside the claim Iraq could become another Iran, but I think way too much is being made of this issue.
The problem with Iran is not sharia. The problem is that Iran does not respect the democratic process. The sharia laws as practiced in Iran are extremely unpopular with Iranians, but since the clerics can veto not only the legislature but even who is allowed to run for office, the will of the people is ignored. That cannot happen under Iraq’s constitution. As long as the democratic process is respected, Iraq should be OK. Any laws that are too restrictive will be voted out. That’s the fundamental reason democracy works.
We already know that the vast majority of Iraqis want democracy, want a unified Iraq, and want secularism mixed with traditional Islamic values. There have been numerous polls to that effect. The Iraqis can see how theocracy has failed as clearly as we can, indeed more so living right next door to it as they do. The Iraqi religious leadership itself says clerics should not run the gov’t.
Turing: record, as in for the record this post is expanded on in my blog if anyone’s interested
What people ignore about this is that the Iraqi democracy will be something unlike any democracy we’ve ever seen. It’s going to involve Islamic principles, how can it not? American democracy was born of a very Christianity-based constitution, so it only makes sense that an Iraqi constitution will strongly reflect Islam. Besides, we’re talking about a document that, given democracy is respected as TallDave mentions, will grow as public sentiment does, and become more flexible as trial law allows.
This whole thing is an immensely historic process, whether it’s completed in two weeks or two decades it’s still exciting. We’re witnessing something that parallels the early years of our own government, but without the bias of 200 years of sugar-coating and historical erosion. Democracies don’t spring up like McDonald’s franchises, something that people forget and the critics will no doubt capitalize on.
Turing= Longer. As in, my post was longer than Daves! pppbbbbttt!
well, maybe not. bah!
…Iraq the model post states:
This statement appears, for now, to avoid the contentious issue of Islamic law and its role in the new Iraq. On the surface, it holds the promise of an Iraq freed not only from a brutal dictator’s oppression, but from the backward and despotic rule of Shar’ia law. However, hidden within the circumspect language is a recipe for continued struggle, violence, and civil war. While the news is good and many Iraqis are justifiably celebrating, a cautionary note is in order.
The possible permutations of conflicts present in the above proclamation are enormous. Just what are the widely agreed upon values of Islam? Given the number of Islamic countries that suppress women’s rights, it appears subjugation of women in Islamic societies is “widely agreed uponâ€Â. But then such a practice would run afoul of the values of democracy and human rights. However, such a disconnect is evident in our own history regarding women’s rights, providing an excuse for any practice which contradicts the lofty goal of supporting these two ideals. We have no moral authority here.
There remains the unfortunate fact that many values of Islam are in direct conflict with the values of democracy and human rights as we define them. While Islamic societies which adhere somewhat to these two principles exist, they are in the minority. None of this is intended to suggest that Islam is incapable of a democratic rule which recognizes human rights, only that in contemporary Islam such a society is unlikely to form in the divided and tension filled Iraq. Islam has yet to undergo the equivalent of Western enlightenment, and differences are as likely to be settled with bullets and bombs as at the bargaining table. This will be a lengthy process, likely requiring more U.S. troops in Iraq for an extended period of time. Any less of a commitment on our part increases the risk that Iraq will deteroriate into warring factions soon after our departure…
Read more here
It’s interesting the militias seem to be outlawed.
Of course, they’re way outgunned even by the 180,000 (and growing) half-assed-but-getting-better soldiers the central gov’t can field.
Well, we aren’t defining their government for them. You forget that for the majority of our democracy’s ‘lifetime’ women weren’t allowed to vote, and people of color were held in contempt. America still deals with discrimination issues on a consistent basis. Expecting Iraq to roll out a polished system of government is completely ludicrous, especially when we’ve been at it for hundreds of years and can’t get it right. It’s supposed to be a constant work in progress, and therein lies the amazing thing about democracy. How long it takes Iraq to get there though, is anyone’s guess.
It is not allowed to detain or hold someone for questioning without a court order. All forms of physical or bodily torture or inhuman treatment are banned…
That’s a big deal too.
So the legislature, in a couple of years, tries to pass a law saying that men may not beat women who try to leave them. And when the courts say that such a law is unconstitutional because “No law may contradict Islamic standards,” what are you going to say?
“[4.34] Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.”
I support the war and Bush’s attempts at establishing freedom in Iraq, but if this constitution is the end result, the project will have failed. What a fiasco.
It not perfect, but neither was the US constitution,( 3/5 , women and blacks not being able to vote )
Democracy is a process not an event. The road taken is different for everybody. Iraq will have it share bumps in the road just like the US.
I keep thinking the problem with Africa nations started in the 60’s when a bunch of egg heads wrote perfect documents for soon to be independent nations. It the people and their representatives that need to write it. It then can grow and change with its people.
We’re not mid-wiving a new democracy in Iraq for kicks or activist utopianism, we’re doing it for security reasons. For ours, the region’s and the world’s. Islamic republics no longer can be considered very stable, given the Islamist movement and its strong foothold in most Muslim countries. Islamic rule is more susceptible to Islamism than ever before. Islamic republics tend to be corrupt, poor and oppressive because, without transparent civil law and full rights bestowed upon women, their societies and economies suck (even the Arabist UNpeople said so in their reports on the failed ME). And sucky life is vulnerable to extremism.
Democracy’s NOT enough, when fundamentalists can vote themselves into power, strip civil rights and secular due process and institute sharia law. An Islamic “democracy” in Iraq that doesn’t provide for absolute separation of mosque and state shouldn’t be OK with Americans and doesn’t auger well for Iraqis. We sent precious troops and a helluva lot of money to liberate them and set an example for the Muslim world. Why should we allow Iraq to go the way of other failed Muslim states after all the effort and bloodshed and not appreciably improve our security by much? We would have been kinder and better to Iraqis had we firmly told them they were now free to become a secular democracy and may their Muslim/pluralistic society thrive and new open economy prosper.
Here’s hoping that behind the scenes something better and more logical is assured than this confusing statement that tries to give secularists and fundamentalists equal constitutional standing and that which will only exacerbate sectarian differences over Islamic law, anyway.
The trouble with Islam is it hasn’t got a pope. Or the equivalent, anyway. There is no central authority (and please, no side arguments about the Pope not being a central authority for christians anymore. I know that. I’m trying to make a point here.)
There is no one who can say “This is good Islam” or “This is bad (heretical) Islam.”
Consequently, you have umpteen million wild-eyed mullahs/imams/muftis etc etc pouring out fatwas and doctrine that is often wildly conflicting and all too often incites violence against both “infidels” and insufficiently “muslim” muslims.
Not good. Dangerous, as has been amply proven.
ISLAM NEEDS REFORM, at least to the extent that it becomes less decentralized and more amenable to, y’know, logic….
SB: soon
Well, Jesus, that seems OK to me. I was getting all woried with the way people were carrying on about it last night. It’s much, much better than that ridiculous monstrosity the EU tried to propose as a constitution.
Bear in mind that the Iraqi’s will not have anything like Americans’ reverential attitude toward our constitution. Thus, if a proposed law is overwhelimingly popular but contrary to Shari’a, they’ll enact it and constituion be damned.
I think there is a distinction since we rolled back the restrictions of the Taliban, virtually any improvement was a big step forward. In Iraq where conditions for women were not Taliban-like, people are concerned (rightly or wrongly) about moving backwards.
Yeah, I’d hate for those Iraqi women to lose the right to have their husbands or sons dragged off and tortured and killed, or themselves be raped by government thugs. And, of course, about 80% of them lose the right to be oppressed by Sunnis. Then there’s the right to be taken, used, and killed by the sons of the President. Gosh, I certainly hope the new constitution doesn’t take away those rights.
Look. I’m invoking the Republican Rule: If it’s not perfect, it don’t count. That is as opposed to the Democratic Dictum: Good intentions are good enough.
JorgXMcKie,
You’re framing the situation just in terms of Iraqis and narrowly at that. After the bloody war we should expect that Iraqis and their women are better off with Saddam & Sons & Sunnis having lost their franchise, even though in fundamentalist regions and households they certainly won’t be now. Still, this whole enterprise has been about US security and seeding real democracy and open society in the Muslim world to choke off militant Islam which seeks sharia and theocracy, and so the specter of Iraq becoming an Islamic state is unreassuring to say the least.
Are we to understand that a post-war, conflicted country with a strong secular tradition and newly unleashed sectarian Muslim interests becoming a quasi Islamic state in these Islamist times with an oppressive Wahhibist regime to the left of them and a scary Shiite dictatorship to the right of them and terrorists and jihadists plentiful in all three countries is merely “not perfect” and that we good Repubs who support Bush and our military and these wars should maybe just get over it or something?
Of course our feckless Dems have been offering worse then any sup-optimal results; they’ve lusted after our abject failure overseas. Fortunately, we will not fail, but…
I can only hope, with some good reason, that the Iraqis behave as the Afghans I knew. Lip service to Islam out in public, lots of rolled eyes in private. I suppose the Afghans had the worse ‘Islamic governance’ experience, while under the Taliban. But the Iraqis start from a more secular background – so I will remain cautious and hopeful.
Mojo said,
“The trouble with Islam is it hasn’t got a pope. Or the equivalent, anyway. There is no central authority ….”
Oh, that’s <i>the</i> problem with Islam? I won’t allow that it’s even a major problem. The problem for us with Islam is that the Koran preaches violence. Read Sura 9, for instance. The fact that the Koran elsewhere seems conciliatory does not at all change the fact that in Sura 9, it preaches violence. And before anyone pipes up with another irrelevancy, it doesn’t matter if one can show that the Jewish scriptures, i.e. the Christian Old Testament, sometimes preaches violence, too. <i>Islam preaches violence even if some other religion does, too.</i>
“There is no one who can say “This is good Islam†or “This is bad (heretical) Islam.—
I don’t understand what makes Mojo think that if some grand poobah were to begin making declarations as to who are heretics, peace would break out. The grand poobah cannot be expected to rule the way Mojo would want him to. Instead, he could be expected to read Sura 9 and say, “Yup, it says right here to make war on the infidels.” Even if he did rule the way Mojo would want him to, there’s no reason to think that anyone would listen to him–not least because that’s not what the d*mn Koran says.
<i>”Consequently, you have umpteen million wild-eyed mullahs/imams/muftis etc etc pouring out fatwas and doctrine that is often wildly conflicting and all too often incites violence against both “infidels†and insufficiently “muslim†muslims. …”
When anyone says that muslims are insufficiently muslim for not killing the infidels, he’s right. Being a good muslim involves converting or killing infidels. That’s why we cannot countenance the existence of good muslims. At most, we can countenance the existence of sh*tty muslims. But there, we run the risk that the sh*tty muslims will turn into good ones.
“ISLAM NEEDS REFORM, at least to the extent that it becomes less decentralized and more amenable to, y’know, logic.”
Islam needs reform. Oh, is that all? This reform will be imposed by Mojo and what army? “How many divisions does the Pope have?”
I love a good, sarcastic comment.
Me and what army? Are you stupid or something?
You got two choices, genius: reform yourselves, or be reformed at the point of a bayonet. You pick it.
Laugh that off.
Hopefully people like Bill Clinton won’t be the ones trying to define the difference between “a” and “the” in Iraq. Then they’d be in trouble.
Likewise, given our own issues with defining the word “public”… hopefully Iraq won’t follow our model to closely.