A milestone...but just one of the first among many necessary ones. A good article on the last minute snags involved. http://www.boston.com/dailynews/068/world/Iraqi_politicians_sign_interim:.shtml There was good news and bad news in this. The good news is that the Shiites backed down in the face of objections, and it didn't collaspe into incompletion or worse, possible fighting. The other good news is that parties are working in the realm of compromise. The bad news is that the separation of Church and State has a long way to go. It is understandable, after so long under oppression, the majority Shiites are nervous and want to exercise majority power as the ultimate protective shield. But they have to understand the Kurds are nervous too, as are the Sunnis. Meanwhile, the Shiites still need to internalize the notion that, in a democracy, certain aspects must be approved by a super-majority, in order to protect the rights of the minorities.
Some more interesting perspectives: http://www.rnw.nl/hotspots/html/iraq040308.html By coincidence, the ceremony took place on International Women's day. The interim constitution has set a target of 25 percent of the future parliament's seats for women. Nonetheless, Iraqi women's groups complain that the new interim constitution does not sufficiently guarantee women's equal rights in marriage, inheritance and other aspects of the Personal Status Law. It's a concern shared by Human Rights Watch. Also, Iraqi women are concerned about the increasing pressure by Islamist forces upon women to wear the veil in public and in government offices. One of the contentious issues in the drafting of the interim constitution was the role of Islam. Even though, in the end, Islam was cited as a source, and not the primary source of legislation, one thing is clear: women face a tough struggle to obtain by democratic means in the new Iraq what they had been allotted by the dictatorial but secular Baath regime. Women's issues were not among the reasons for the signing delay: those were primarily related to Shi'ite demands for greater representation in the future presidency; they favoured a rotating presidency with three Shi'ites, one Sunni and one Kurd, instead of having one president with two deputies. But the most contentious issue was a clauses stipulating that by two-thirds of the voters in any three provinces can veto the yet to be drafted future and permanent constitution in a national referendum. This would give the Kurds, who control three provinces in Iraqi Kurdistan, practically veto-power over any permanent constitution that does not grant the Kurds far-reaching autonomy. All members of the Governing Council, including the Shi'ite representatives, agreed upon a federal system for Iraq and hence autonomy for the Kurds, but the interim constitution leaves the details of the how and when for later. Nevertheless, Ayatollah Sistani objected. With the Shi'ites about to become the ruling majority in Iraq - or at least, so they expect - their leader is afraid to give too much power to the Kurds. The Kurds for their part adamantly refused to give in. They have a bitter history of promises of autonomy, conveniently forgotten as soon as the central power in Baghdad felt strong enough to ignore them. The Kurds therefore insist on iron-clad guarantees that the rights of the Kurdish minority are respected by whatever majority emerges from future elections. A delegation of Shi'ite advisers visited Ayatollah Sistani over the weekend and finally persuaded him to accept the interim constitution as agreed upon.
Bump. Could this be a way too positive development for the leftists on this board to even deign to comment?
Actually, I'd enjoy reading the document itself before commenting on it. Has anyone come across a link to a translation? Even so, given that a lot of Iraqis may simply be under the opinion "Sure, sign whatever gets the Americans out, and THEN we can decide how we want to rule the country" ... I'm not confident that any of our comments will have meaning months from now.
Constitution or not, in a country with no democratic tradition, democracy is going to have to be enforced in Iraq for a long long time. Ruh Roh: that is not comforting.
It's not neccesarily as bad as it seems. Replace "Islam" with "Roman Catholicism" and you could find a similar phrase in Ireland's constitution.
This looks promising: though I'm not so sure about this (in regards to the Presidency Council): And after seeing the European Union struggle with their preamble it's nice to see a three paragraph Iraqi preamble.
What do you want us to do? Applaud the fact that 25 lackeys handpicked by the Bush administration put their signature on a faux legal document that doesn't even claim to be binding or permanent?
My personal favorite was: Article 17. It shall not be permitted to possess, bear, buy, or sell arms except on licensure issued in accordance with the law. Somehow, I don't think Charlton Heston proposed that language.
Of course no one would expect that of you, GT! I´m sure we all agree it would be much better to let things go on as they are indefinately.
While I wouldn't exactly lump myself in with the "leftists," I have been pushed in that direction by the current administration. The constitution is a good step. Yes, there are some spots with shaky and discomforting wording, but that is what was bound to happen. Frankly, it's a pretty good sign, as you can clearly see the compromises in the legislation. You wouldn't know it by watching our government lately, but compromise is how democratic governments actually accomplish things. This is a very positive sign. The next step is to see if it can hold authority for any length of time. Baby steps.
Thank to the person posting the link to the text of the constitution. These seem to be more most interest parts (IMOH). So, the National Assembly will be one house with 275 members. (1/4 of them women.) From this group the person with the most votes will be President, 2nd and 3rd most Deputy Presidents. (These three are then called the Presidency Council). These three then must unanimiously select the Prime Minister within two weeks. The Prime Minister is in charge of the armed force. The Presidency Council recommend the top Judicial appointments. So, it seems to have a strong legislature, but a weak executive branch. In Chapter 8 Articles 52 and 53 set of 18 (states) governates, and keep the Domcratic Assembly in the Kurdish north entact. The other states except for Bagdahd and Kirkuk can join together form a region with an assembly. It seems to keep the option open for a very federal level of government, to prevent power from being too centralized.
For some on this board...not you Jacen...imperfection and incompletion is a sign of, I dunno, disaster? Chaos? Look if there were NO document coming out of this process, that would REALLY be bad. If there were a PERFECT document coming out of this process, THAT would really be bad, because a perfect document would be a sham. And this applies not just the document, but the process, too. Those who rail that this group are "lackeys" for the adminstration conveniently forget that the Shiites on the council WERN'T going to sign this, and had to convene with Al Sistani, who relented. Is al-Sistani a "lackey" of the Bush Administration? Go ahead, I DARE you to tell that to the faces of some of his followers. Go ahead. I NEVER CEASE TO BE AMAZED BY THE F$U$C$K $I$N$G CYNICISM AND PESSIMISM OF THE BUSH HATERS AROUND HERE, WHOSE VIEWS ARE SO COLORED BY THEIR VITRIOLIC LOATHING THAT THEY HAVE NO APPRECIATION AT ALL FOR THE GOOD THINGS THAT ARE TRYING TO BE ACCOMPLISHED HERE, HOWEVER AWKARD AND PRELIMINARY THEY MAY BE. Go crawl back into your emotionally bankrupt holes..
You know, Karl... if you quote some posters that have sucessfully circumvented the censor, you'd figure out how to swear more effectively. That notwithstanding, if this is what it appears to be on the surface, good for Iraq. I'm glad they got it done. I wish them all the best and hope their constitution is relevant for centuries.
I don't know why you don't cease to be amaized. I've gotten kind of used to it. A few months ago I put up a thread about a "boiling cauldron of anti-bush fury". At the time, I couldn't understand why so many on this boards seemed to have a real hatred of Bush. To me, he's done a deft job of triangulating the left and the right with things like "No Child Left Behind" and "Prescription Drug Coverage". Well the libs on this board came up with 1001 reasons why they hated Bush but there seemed to be one common denominator. They hated him as a person. Why? I think it's because Bush exudes a frat boy attitude. They see in him someone who makes it despite himself, has terrible character and looks down on others who don't hold his in-crowd outlook. I think some hate Bush so much they'd love to see Iraq go down the tubes. WHEN it doesn't, and Bush takes most of the credit, it will drive them even higher up the wall. Any sucess just pushes them more and more to think he's an evil liar. They hate to give him credit because they hate him as a person. To them, he seems to embody everyone whose ever gotten ahead based on social standing.
Again, not a card carrying "pinko leftist," but I don't like Bush and it has nothing to do with his personality. I don't know the man, personally. All that crap politicians put into the media to show their human side is just that: a show. You can't get to know someone based simply on what they want you to know about them, and what their enemies want you to know about them. I hate Bush for his policy. In particular, I'm less than fond of his economic policies. I didn't like the tax cuts too much, but I wasn't frothing mad about them until he inflated government spending like Barry Bonds' head. I think his priorities are all messed up, as he seems more concerned with gay marriage and Iraq than with the economy and Al Queda. I don't like the fact that he limits himself to the media, giving fewer press conferences than any other president in history. I don't like the fact that early in his term he took more vacation time than any president in history. I, as an education major, really, REALLY dislike his education policy, as it ignores a number of things that educators have known for years. I don't know how you can cite NCLB as a "way of triangulating the left and right" when NCLB is one of the few things both sides have derided. People who understand the concepts of educating children don't like it because its philosophy is flawed. People who could care less about those flaws don't like it because its underfunded. Bush could be a well-spoken, endearing, intelligent, self-made man. With his record on policy decisions, both fiscal, abroad and in our classrooms, I don't like him as a President.
Jesus Karl, take a pill, what's to get excitied about? The people who signed this non-binding document were all picked by the Bush administration. It means more to calm the fears of Americans than it does Iraqis.
So I guess it would have been better not to put together a cross section of Iraqis to sort out the transistion to a post Saddam Iraq. Just leave them alone, they´ll figure it out. That´s rich. Now, what makes it any more non-binding then any other signed agreement, to include our own constitution?