or
Join Now!
|
|
Home/Government/Politics
|
| Forum |
Ask A Question |
Question Board |
FAQs |
Search |
Return to Question Board
| Question Details |
Asked By |
Asked On |
| Constitutions for dummies? |
CeeBee2 |
08/26/05 |
Lack of detail bedevils Iraq's new constitution
August 26, 2005
BY DEBRA PICKETT CHICAGO SUN-TIMES
"The constitution, to be successful, has to take into account the legitimate interests and fashion a balance in the federalism aspect of it and in the other key things that they're worried about so that they'll all nod and say, 'Well, I really don't like it, it's not perfect, but it's good enough, and by golly, if we have to amend it, lots of other countries have amended their constitution.'" -- Donald Rumsfeld
There's something darned inspiring about watching democracy in action. It's hard not to get a little misty at the thought of a young nation, born of struggle, deciding that, by golly, it's time to take a stand on the kind of timeless and immutable principles that are, well, you know, pretty much good enough for now.
Somewhere, Mrs. Vogel is freaking out. My eighth-grade civics teacher -- a woman whose idea of classroom management was to tell an unruly kid he was "ill bred" -- must be thrilled that the week's news revolves around the relative merits of federalism. But it also must be making her nuts that a lot of the people involved in the whole Iraqi constitution-writing process seem to be taking it about as seriously as the average 14-year-old takes a term paper assignment.
"The constitution," she used to tell us, "embodies our highest principles."
So I bet it really bothers her that, despite the celebration of its sort-of completion, almost on time, the newly drafted Iraqi constitution manages to say nothing and to mean even less. Full of the broad generalizations and hedge-your-bets contradictions found in the middle of triple-spaced book reports with extra-wide margins, the document fails to answer even the most basic questions about how the "new" Iraq will be governed.
As an exercise in taking the exam without having read any of the books, it's impressive, even artful. But as the foundation for a new democracy -- one established at the cost of thousands of lives -- it leaves a lot to be desired.
No contradictions allowed
At least one of the delegates must have picked up a copy of Constitutions for Dummies because the proposed document starts off strong, with a familiar-sounding preamble that begins "We the people . . ."
But things quickly go south from there and, by article two, the delegates' lofty rhetoric descends into something that sounds a little like the rules for Fight Club. The document reads:
First, Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:
a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.
b) No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy.
c) No law can be passed that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms outlined in this constitution.
There's no mention of what's supposed to happen if the rules of Islam and the principles of democracy happen to contradict each other, as seems pretty much inevitable given the pronouncements of some of Iraq's ruling clerics.
Guaranteed, unless it isn't
Things just get more complicated from there, as the constitution goes on to list some of the rights and freedoms that are "guaranteed" to Iraqi citizens.
Article 17 says that each person has the right to privacy "as long as it does not violate the rights of others or general morality."
And, similarly, Article 36 guarantees freedom of expression, assembly, protest and the press, "as long as [this freedom] does not violate public order and morality."
There's no mention of how morality should be defined, but, if you check out the writings of the senior Shia cleric in Iraq, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, it becomes clear that, for many of our, ahem, democratic allies in Iraq, morality has a certain know-it-when-I-see-it quality. According to Sistani, chess and backgammon are unquestionably sinful, as is playing the lottery and maintaining a friendship with a member of the opposite sex, while birth control, betting on horses and drinking nonalcoholic beer are all totally OK, as is plastic surgery.
Open, unless they're secret
Article 19 says that Iraqi court sessions will be open "unless the court decides to make them secret." Which, when you get down to it, is not exactly ironclad protection against a tyrannical regime of secret laws and secret courts.
In article after article, the proposed constitution makes passing reference to fundamental rights and freedoms and then stops short of protecting them in any meaningful way. Maybe that sort of thing is not supposed to matter.
Maybe this constitution -- these governing principles that are supposed to be the foundation of a new republic -- is just a symbol. And maybe what it says doesn't really matter because, as Rumsfeld points out, it can always be changed later.
But if that's what this great new democracy is all about -- a list of freedoms that come with a built-in mechanism for taking them away -- you have to wonder if it's really worth fighting and dying for.
***************************
Do we agree with Rumsfeld, or what? |
Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 08/26/05 1:20 pm:
I suspect the subject of religion (Iraq) is a far cry from the subject of slavery (US), and will be (is) more a much more serious consideration
perhaps ;ultimately slavery was decided by a great civil war .ideally the goal is to avoid one in Iraq. I do not rule out the possibility. the ripples of democracy an revolutionary change have already started .it was a gamble to unleash them but the status quo was unacceptable. Clarification/Follow-up by CeeBee2 on 08/26/05 1:33 pm:
tomder -- I agree that the status quo was unacceptable, but will a civil war in Iraq be the (ultimate) healer as it was for the U.S.? I fear not. I don't see our brand of democracy (and maybe not any brand of democracy) resulting from a civil war.
|
| |
|
Your Options |
Additional Options are only visible when you login! !
|
|
|
|
