Once again the Constitution's deadline has been bumped back amid quarrelling over major democratic issues.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/22/iraq.main/index.html
It appears that the United States is really pushing for a federalist secular government - which might not be a particular expression of the people this constitution will govern.
There was debate earlier centering around whether Islam would be "a" or "the" main source for legislation. They "a's" have it.
The goal here is to make sure the government is constitutional, liberal, and representative, there are various situations where an imbalance of those aspects could result in disaster - minorities' rights being trampled by the will of the majority, or total factionalism.
But on the other hand if there is not an expression of the Iraqi people in the constitution - which most surely would place a heavy emphasis on religious ties and tribal/ethnic background - the Constitution will have no legitimacy and fail.
Where is the balance - and what aspects of the Constitution do you disagree with.
What degree of importance in governing should the Quran play in this government, and to what degree would it result in extremism?
Most importantly will this Constitution created under the "patronage" of the United States be [i]de facto[/i] illegitimate in the eyes of the people - resulting in an illegitimate government?
The constitution is pretty meaningless when Kurdish militias control the north, Shi'ite militias control the south and no one controls the centre.
The police force in the south of the country is basically run by pro-iranian elements who'll do what they want regardless of what the constitution does or does not say.
I'm still not sure where this process will go.
Well apparently the Shia's have declared it is ready... the rest are saying it is nowhere near so...
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Salam
Why don't they simply adopt the American Constitution.
If I was leader in Iraq I would do just that. I dont think most people have read that noble document.
Its pretty much what Islam teaches.
Anyway, Shias are controlling the country right now.
They gained the largest shares of votes.
HEnce they are not going to allow the rest of the Iraq to now dictate to them how to write the text of the constitution.
This was the story in the news:
U.S. concedes ground to Islamists on Iraqi law
By Luke Baker in BAGHDAD
U.S. diplomats have conceded ground to Islamists on the role of religion in Iraq, negotiators said.
U.S. diplomats, who have insisted the constitution must enshrine ideals of equal rights and democracy, declined comment.
Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurdish negotiators all said there was accord on a bigger role for Islamic law than Iraq had before.
But a secular Kurdish politician said Kurds opposed making Islam "the," not "a," main source of law -- changing current wording -- and subjecting all legislation to a religious test.
"We understand the Americans have sided with the Shi'ites," he said. "It's shocking. It doesn't fit American values. They have spent so much blood and money here, only to back the creation of an Islamist state ... I can't believe that's what the Americans really want or what the American people want."
Washington, with 140,000 troops still in Iraq, has insisted Iraqis are free to govern themselves but made clear it will not approve the kind of clerical rule seen in Shi'ite Iran, a state President Bush describes as "evil."
An official of one of the main Shi'ite Islamist parties in the interim government confirmed the deal on law and Islam.
Omrow
[img]http://img366.imageshack.us/img366/1430/cartoon230805103184a1mr.jpg[/img]
The Independent
Seems the sunnis and the followers of Muqtadr Al Sadr are against this constitution.
It was printed before the sunnis had put through the ammendments they were tabling!
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
The sunni coalitions flat out said they didn't approve of this consitution, and they are already talking about post conventional amendments.
That's bad but not destablizing - it happened with the American Constitution as well and resulted in the bill of rights.
They are not talking about post constitutional amendments, but flat out making it fail.
Then a new council/assembly will be elected, with new representatives, starting the whole process again.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
This whole thing is ridiculous.
The people who have the guns are the ones who will determine how Iraq is run not politicians.
It seems to me that many of the shi'ite groups are playing the democracy card in order to gain official recognition and authority. At the same time though they are establishing their militias throughout the south of the country and doing whatever they want regardless of the political process.
The media always tries to demonise al-Sadr as an enemy of democracy but the truth is that his group is relatively small and has no clear links to Iran. SCIRI and the Badr brigades on the other hand have clear links to Iran, are much stronger and have significant influence in the government.
It would seem that they are much more dangerous to American goals than Sadr or even the baathist insurgents.
This calls in to question the point of why British troops are even still in the country. We're told that they're there to stop violence however SCIRI is the main source of violence in southern Iraq and they're not being interfered with at all. Why are British troops still there.
The shias have millitias under control aswell.
They have been used to torture people. The police have been infiltrated by them aswell.
A journo who reported this about a month ago was shot (dead?) by 'millitants' the net day!
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Oh look, Zalmay Khalilzad the neo-con's pet muslim envoy has called the (currently much disputed) iraqi constitution
"the most progressive document of the Muslim world,"
[url=http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=World_News&sub...
Compare this to his declaration of the afghan constitution as
"one of the most enlightened Constitutions in the Islamic world."
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20040115_sunder.html
These almost identical declarations are strange considering Iraq is a completely different society to Afghanistan and one would expect their constitutions and certainly the applications of their constitutions to be different.
I wonder how he compares them?
Dare we suggest that these statements are just rhetoric with no real substance?
What do you mean "aswell"?
That was all I really said.
Did you mean that they control the police as well as having private militias?
aswell as sunnis.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
The "insurgents" aren't technically militias.
Insurgents/guerillas are covert whereas militias are overt civillian security forces.
Think shi'ite Dads Army.