Iraq Constitution Delayed. No Big Deal.
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Legislation, The World, WarI’m with Jeff Jarvis on this one. A one week delay is hardly a defeat. The Iraqis need to get this right, and I think they should take another month or two if it’s going to mean a document that is more mainstream and not so closely aligned with Islamic law.
From Buzz Machine:
On the Iraqi constitution, a week’s delay is seen as a defeat. But, of course, we should compare that with our own heritage: 16 months to negotiate articles of confederation that were a disaster; 13 years from the Declaration of Independence before we ended up with a constitution and a government. And we had an advantage: We weren’t murdering each other.
(HT: Instapundit)
This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 16th, 2005 and is filed under Legislation, The World, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
August 16th, 2005 at 8:43 am
Unfortunately, I think Jeff’s point is lost on just about everyone: democratization is a process, not an event, as Glenn Reynolds is fond of pointing out.
OTOH, I think it’s unrealistic to expect Iraq’s first-ever Constitution to be aligned with anything *but* shari‘a law, since that is what the majority of Iraqis view as the de facto ‘law of the land’. A democratic Iraq is going to reflect the wishes of the majority. That becomes more apparent after listening to the discussion between Chris Lydon and Vali Nasr that was mentioned here:
http://donklephant.com/2005/08/15/steven-vincents-widow-speaks/
Seems like a lot of people think this is a problem, for three reasons.
First, those of us who follow other faiths - or no faith - may not agree with much of shari`a. It’s our nature as defined by our culture to reject its more radical elements, especially when those elements are not only sensationalized by the media (way out of proportion to those elements that are compatible with or even similar to other religions), but are also at the heart of the terrorist threat. But that’s no reason to expect the Iraqis to reject it outright, especially in light of the majority who already follow that faith.
Second, a very vocal minority in the U.S. has worked relentlessly to convert our First Amendment from a guarantee of freedom *of* religion into a guarantee of freedom *from* religion. A victory for religion in the Iraqi Constitution more than flies in the face of these efforts, especially inasmuch as it is being facilitated by what the SOCAS minority wants everyone to see as a secular superpower (i.e., the U.S.). In fact, if successful, a religious Constitution in Iraq would undercut today’s politically correct conventional wisdom on the First Amendment.
Third, I think a shari`a-based society is seen by many in the West as a geopolitical threat, inasmuch as it is perceived as an alignment with the mullacracies in Iran. But as Vali Nasr points out in the interview mentioned above, this isn’t as simple as it looks from here in the West.
The way I see it - in the context of the effects our U.S. “melting pot” society has had on almost all religious belief, and Islam in particular - a *peaceful*, democratic, shari`a-based Iraqi society that has friendly, productive ties with the West presents the “last, best hope” for integration of Middle Eastern culture with the rest of the world and, through that integration, the best chance to tone down the more radical elements of shari`a law (i.e., it’s mistreatment of women, honor killings, distortion used to justify jihad, etc.). In fact, the genie is already out of the bottle despite the references to shari`a in the Iraqi Constitution: women are voting, terrorism is a bane to their existence, and though their culture may be retarded, as Callimachus observed a while back, they are not stupid.
While the circumstances are unique, as they typically are with each major historical event involving human nature, this wouldn’t be the first time we’ve seen this sort of thing.
http://tinyurl.com/apv4c