Most of the discussion about Iraq’s constitution has focused on the political process around getting it passed. I haven’t seen a ton of discussion about the actual text. But today the papers have a link to the document, and I have to say, I’m underwhelmed. (And I apologize if this site turns out to require registration.)
Even making allowances for the fact that this is translated and just a draft, it still looks to me like work that was done in the bus on the way to school. So I wanted to put the question to our experts out there: from a technical point of view, does this seem like a workable constitution? In other words, do you see this as an effective basis for a future body of law and system of government?
I, in my layman’s view, see enough holes to drive a truck through.
Whatever the text says, if they generally want to make it work, it’ll work. If they don’t, it won’t. Same as any other nominally-democratic constitution.
Captain Amazing, you’re right, this is one of the things that’s puzzling. Are they going to fill it in later, is it just a numbering issue, or is this actually an excerpt? This is part of the reason I began to wonder about how watertight this document really is. It looks like the roughest of rough drafts.
ElvisL1ves, I don’t believe sucess or failure of the document is so totally divorced from what the document actually says.
Wouldn’t it ultimately boil down to what exactly they mean by “Islam”? Do they strictly mean the contents of the Koran? Or do they include other documents and historical or legal traditions? Given that some of the major differences between Sunni and Shia Muslims are over these exact issues, and it seems like such an ambiguous statement is an invitation for disaster.
For that matter, what the heck does “democratic standards” mean? Which democracy?
It’s really a baffling, dissonant, almost incoherent document, at least at this stage.
Now I’m beginning to experience cognitive dissonance about the whole thing. We hear from some quarters, “The constitution is almost done, except for the last few details,” but then the version we see in the press seems to give the lie to that idea. You’d think that if a better, cleaner version existed that somebody – oh, say, the White House? – would have a vested interest in seeing that it got out.
Does anybody out there see this document in a more positive light, or think the Iraqis are within spitting distance of something workable?
I think we’ll have to wait until we get a decent translation before examining even such obvious clash points.
Juan Cole gives a different translation this morning
Once translated, we can compare the Iraqi, to the Iranian constitution and get an idea of how the words might be realized on the ground.
Ambiguity is a necessity of diplomacy and compromise. They’ll never reach agreement on all issues. Better to be ambiguous and postpone some arguments to the future. Of course, a too ambiguous constitution will guarantee problems. A balance is required.
I believe ambiguity is one of the essential characteristics that make the U.S. Constitution so brilliant (and elegant). Compare, for example, to the detailed-befuddled European Constitution.
Hey, Israel’s existed for almost sixty years without an actual written consitution that delineates the line between the religious and democratic character of the state. Let’s not make the perfect the enemy of the good. The Iraqi people, after decades of Baathist oppression, seem very enthusiastic about being able to have a say in their own government, and if there are a few gray areas that need to be clarified later, it should be good enough to be getting on with.
This is, in effect, the essence of the Israeli problem, and I don’t know that I would hold this up as a model for anyone. As to the perfect being the enemy of the good, my contention is that the current Iraqi constitution – with the caveat that we have seen a highly incomplete version – is not anywhere near being considered “good.”
I agree that it is a looming problem for Israel, but what it does is lay the groundwork for the issue to be settled in a peaceful, orderly manner when settling it is finally necessary. If Iraq can run itself in a democratic manner for half a century, even if a consitutional crisis occurs after that point, it will (hopefully) represent two generations of Iraqis raised with a mind-set of resolving the issue without terrorism or civil war.
It’s certainly better than anything any other Arab nation has. And it was hammered out by the Iraqis themselves, who were voted by the Iraqi public to do the task. It may not be what we Westerners would think of as “good”, but it represents a quantum leap forward from militarily-backed totalitarianism.
They refer to “undisputed” principles of Islam. So, itshould give a lot of wiggle room.
Apart from that, this constitution is severely lacking at this point. Essentially nothing is defined regarding the relationship between the powers (in particular the executive and legislative), and not much is said about the prerogatives of each power, and way too much things are to be determined by law. And the electoral process isn’t really defined, either.
Also, they should have abstained from mentionning current issues, in particular “terrorism” should have no place in this document.
That’s a draft of a draft… I’m honestly baffled that they came out with that after so long debates. Or rather…they probably say nothing in the constitution because they couldn’t agree on anything. That’s not very encouraging.
What’s a “democratic standard”? I haven’t the foggiest, other then that people should be able to elect their leaders, which is already stated explicitly in the document.
It’s not only a sop to the West, it’s a meaningless sop.
