Getting It Done Is Getting It Right
I never thought I would take this position, particularly given what could be at stake for the women of Iraq, but I’m going to come down on the getting it done side. Let’s just remember, the compromises that our founding fathers made to get to a constitution – mediating between slave states and free states – included one that left slavery intact and defined each slave as worth only 3/5 of a person. Fred Kaplan has pointed to the many differences between the 18th century U.S. process and the 21st century Iraqi process, but a stark similarity remains: by agreeing on a set of principles as the ground rules for a national political process you give everyone involved a stake in trying to advance their interests through that process rather than through violence or secession. That is precisely what ordinary Iraqis, of any religion or tribe, have not had. And the sudden claim of the insurgents that the "jihad of word" is akin to "jihad by sword" and thus that their supporters should vote in the October referendum means that they are beginning to recognize that there is another field to play on that they cannot afford ignore.
I don’t want to be pollyannish here; there is plenty to be deeply worried about in Iraq, as Juliette points out. But let’s just remember how often we have had to amend our Constitution to provide for freedoms that Americans typically assume are our birthright – including the actual Bill of Rights. If well organized enough, it is quite possible that Iraqi women can secure the same rights in a Muslim state recognizing Islam as a source of legislation that it took American women over a century to achieve – and remember, American feminists were unsuccessful in securing an Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s and 1980s – an effort opposed by none other than Bush’s current Supreme Court nominee. The Iraqi provinces and the central government can start the tug of war of federalism – through legislation and litigation – that our states and federal government engage in continually. The point is to create a framework for politics actually to work, for democracy actually to deliver what the people need. If this constitution can do that, in a way that actually changes conditions for Iraqis on the ground, then there will be time to amend its principles.
Advertisement
What the dwindling band of folks who seem to think things are on a good or even a neutral trajectory are missing - at least in this thread, but I have seen this elsewhere - is several things.
One, trying to define success by whether or not the insurgency is increasing or decreasing. While I certainly wouldn't want to suggest that the insurgency's strenght and ability to attack is irrelevent, it is only one among a plethora of problems that currently make Iraq one of the least livable places on the planet.
Secondly, and this is a related point. Whether or not people are dropping pieces of paper in ballot boxes is by no means a significant measure of whether or not the country is a failed state or not. There have been many elections in sub-Saharan African countries, but this means nothing if life in the country remains anarchic, desperate, and poor. The bottom line is that Iraq is miles away from having the kind of civil society or rule of law that are essential preconditions for a functioning state let alone a successful democracy. Indeed, I'd say its moving in the opposite direction, at least if you accept the premise that Iraq is and should remain a contiguous state.
Thirdly, and I'd refer people to Kevin Drum's quite astute post on the topic. The question is not whether or not individual good things are happening. Surely, they are. They happen in the most desperate of situations. The question is the big picture. What is the larger trajectory? Are not ethnic and religious militias as well as criminal gangs increasingly taking over civil society vacuum, imposing draconian religious law in many parts of the country? See this Washington Post piece on the trend in Shi'ite and Kurdish areas or this Guardian piece on the construction of Taliban-style mini-state in the Sunni city of Haditha. Or how about the whole Steve Vincent affair, who was in fact murdered (likely) because he dared report on the Shi'ite fundamentalist take-over of governance and law enforcement in Basra? How about SCIRI's "forced" removal of Baghdad's mayor last week? Secondly, is there any sign that politics are not moving in the direction of a zero-sum ethno-religious game in which, say, the Shi'ites gain is the Sunni's loss? This gets back to the point about people registering to vote. Why are they registering to vote? What do they hope to achieve by voting? All these trends - towards sectarianism, away from the rule of law, collapse of civil society, astronomical crime rates, no real sense of a national identity - are all classic symptons of a failed state.
Anne-Marie, you've posted some worthwhile and insightful commentary on this site, but this posts is not in this category. Frankly, this is not much better than the embarrasingly sentimental stuff Bush and Condi Rice spout on a consistent basis, that is so symptomatic of the failing of our "bipartisan" "national security establishment" that has led us to where we are today.
August 22, 2005 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anne-Marie,
Certainly you are right in my view concerning the rights that should be accorded under and Iraqi constitution. But it seems that your expressed desire to impart certain constitutional rights to the Iraqi people really suggests that we are in Iraq to impose our values.
For an occupying power, as we are in Iraq, to insist that certain rights and duties be recognized is not democratic. Additionally, it conveys disrespect (perhaps rightly so) for historic beliefs and customs.
Frankly, our own values here in the US aren't always the best, but we would certainly wouldn't accept another country correcting our errors. There's no easy answer. I think you come down on the right side of the issue by suggesting that over time these issues have to be worked out by the Iraqis themselves. It seems that a more humility in our foreign policy might help to build some bridges that we need with very different cultures.
August 22, 2005 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anne-Marie,
What is there to be hopeful about in a last-minute constitution whose "auhor" may not even be the Iraqis, that was carried through without Sunni consultation, and that the ever-inflammatory Mr. Chalabi thought was just fine because the Sunnis can't do anything anyway?
And what does it mean to say that "we have a Constitution" and to claim to have delivered it to Parliament, thereby beating the buzzer, and then to say, "Well. we've got issues to deal with and it won't be ready for a couple of days"? It's stopped being a constitutional process and turned into an entirely political process.
As Juan Cole pointed out on his blog, the leaders of the several states had a longer experience with and commitment to democracy, and the nation still almost collapsed over the deferred issue of slavery. Iraqi leaders by and large do not have such a tradition or investment in democracy and several do not even have clear commitment to a single nation. That may well be a recipe for civil war.
Finally, why do you suppose that the Sunni leaders are not registering voters who will oppose a federated Iraq, and which are the Islamic states with strong and successful womens' rights movements?
Thanks.
August 22, 2005 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, there is no historical parallel between the process of writing the American Constitution and the process of writing this Iraqi Constitution. Absolutely none. Please make your point without resorting to this overused and ridiculous on-its-face comparison.
You write:
But who is agreeing on these principles? And do they really have any common goal in mind or are they just in it to look after their interests in preparation for the real battles to come? As long as militias and insurgents remain - and no one is claiming they won't - violence will be option a), b), and c) for settling disputes. Especially once the occupying forces leave (which is why they probably won't anytime soon).
The conditions for democracy simply do not exist right now. And writing a draft document behind the high bomb-proof walls of the Green Zone in time for an arbitrary political deadline won't suddenly make them appear. We're certainly past the tipping point now... hell, we might have been the day after we invaded.
August 22, 2005 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let’s just remember, the compromises that our founding fathers made to get to a constitution – mediating between slave states and free states – included one that left slavery intact and defined each slave as worth only 3/5 of a person.
Let's also remember that this country needed to fight a civil war to resolve the contradictions left by such compromises.
August 22, 2005 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, if you compare this post to her earlier stated positions, her views have changed a bit -- in a more realistic direction. She at least seems to be grasping that we're not going to be able to "Westernize" Iraq in the short-term, and that the constitution will reflect the local system of values, not ours.
August 22, 2005 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
. . . defined each slave as worth only 3/5 of a person . . . .
The Meme For All Seasons -- guaranteed to reduce the level of any discourse in which it raises its hoary head to that of a seventh-grade civics text book, instantly.
August 22, 2005 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am confused here. I thought that the issue is womens' historic rights in Iraq vs. women's right under Islamic law.
According to the Human Rights Watch website, a robust civil society had existed prior to the coup d'etat in 1968, including a number of women's organizations. Middle and upper class Iraqi women had been attending university since the 1920s.
Under Saddam, women's rights were expanded until the 1990s when a combination of factors including the contraction of employment and Saddam's embrace of Islamic law as a political tool severely curtailed those rights.
So it's not as if Iraqi women have to achieve rights they never had in the past.
I don't know what Islamic law will mean to women in Iraq. Are we talking fundamentalist a la Taliban? No one has said whether women will retain the right to vote or work or even drive in Iraq.
Riverbend, on her blog, writes that she no longer has her job and no longer goes out in public in western dress.
What kind of penalties will there be for women who break Islamic law?
I suppose Americans have to accept that the Bush doctrine of promoting democracy and human rights in the Middle East no longer includes the rights of women, if it ever did. Then again, Bush didn't require Colonel Gadhafi to promote any social changes either before the sanctions were lifted in Libya.
But I get steamed when I remember, in the fall of 2001, the phalanx of Republican women's organizations clamoring in the media about how they were going to help the poor abused women of Afghanistan. Personally, I thought that women's rights was a poor excuse for a war. And what have those Republican women done for the poor abused women in Afghanistan lately?
But wait - you aren't a Republican.
August 22, 2005 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I never thought I would take this position ..." you say -- well I wish you hadn't. This is not being realistic, as much as you may want to make it sound as though it is.
Fact is, it is not up to us to determine what the Iraqis are going to come up with in their Constitution -- we should not have invaded in the first place. Be that as it may, now there is a big mess in Iraq and I for one have no intention of being "realistic" if being realistic means saying it's ok for women in Iraq to have to give up rights they have had for decades. That is very easy to say when you are not the one having to give up those rights!
I'm not saying I can change that, but I will be DAMNED if I sugarcoat it with absolute nonsense about historical imperatives and compromises and American history. This Administration has created a big fat mess in Iraq. They have made it so that nothing very good is going to come of this situation as long as Bush & Co. are in power. I may have to accept that but I will not do any of their rationalizing for them and I suggest that no one else should do so either.
August 22, 2005 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Greg. In my view, debates over constitutional rights, as important as they are, might begin to seem a little bit beside the point to a person who has to face the brutality and deprivation of daily life in Iraq. A constitution or any law for that matter means nothing without a society that's commited and able to support that constitutional right.
August 22, 2005 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point is to create a framework for politics actually to work, for democracy actually to deliver what the people need. If this constitution can do that, in a way that actually changes conditions for Iraqis on the ground, then there will be time to amend its principles.
The point is not to "create" anything. Americans are deluded if they think they can "create a framework" for Iraq. Let's leave creation to the almighty.
Why are Americans participating at all in the writing of another country's constitution?
Just stop it.
August 22, 2005 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Ann-Marie, it turns out that you needn't have bothered writing this post. Everybody in Iraq has guaranteed rights!
Excerpts from President Bush's press conference today:
THE PRESIDENT: ...But I will tell you I spoke with Secretary Rice twice this morning, who has been in touch with our ambassador on the ground. And she is hopeful that more and more Sunnis will accept the constitution. Again, I repeat to you that we're watching an amazing event unfold, and that is the writing of a constitution which guarantees minority rights, women's rights, freedom to worship, in a part of the world that had only -- in a country that had only known dictatorship. And so you're seeing people express their opinions and talking about a political process...
Q ...Does the administration's goal -- I'll ask you about the Iraqi constitution. You said you're confident that it will honor the rights of women.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q If it's rooted in Islam, as it seems it will be, is that still -- is there still the possibility of honoring the rights of women?
THE PRESIDENT: I talked to Condi, and there is not -- as I understand it, the way the constitution is written is that women have got rights, inherent rights recognized in the constitution, and that the constitution talks about not "the religion," but "a religion." Twenty-five percent of the assembly is going to be women, which is a -- is embedded in the constitution.
(What did the president mean when he said "...that the constitution talks about not "the religion," but "a religion"? Is he claiming that the constitution is not referring to Islam?)
August 23, 2005 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mulling over the efforts of Slaughter, Daalder, Yglesias, and other worthy wonkish beltway types to find a "realistic," "constructive," "alternative" "Democratic" policy position on Iraq at this juncture, with the corollary view that "emotional," "Bush-bashing" "netroots" views are self-indulgent and unhelpful, I feel compelled to offer a couple of quick comments. I truly admire all the above-named and want to parlay with them thus--as shall be seen, there is common cause here but not consensus as to how to pursue it:
1) Iraq is almost certainly a doomed state and, yes, President Bush broke it;
2) the fate of our venture there is thus almost entirely out of our hands at this point, and beyond critiquing the Bush Administration's stunning, world-historical level of incompetence in executing said venture and urging appropriate compensatory measures, I can't think of any reason why we can or should do more than try to help to sort out what further efforts (or timed withdrawal) on our part might minimize the catastrophe at the margins;
3) in other words, there is no brilliant strategem or "sexy" policy slickery for Democrats to embrace here; and
4) as all this has monumentally pissed many millions of us off--I would call it a scales-from-the-eyes, life-transforming experience--I think it would be the height of folly, and a Dukakisesque- Chamberlainesque- Weimaresque moral abdication, not to vent as stringently and articulately as possible the manifold causes and dimensions of that outrage and apply it to the GOP's very most tender parts.
This ain't beanbag, folks--it's the fate of our nation, with its betrayed public, its misused and mistreated military, and its battered and sophistically, nihilistically assaulted constitutional system that is at stake. Those who wrap themselves in patriotism are the very scoundrels who are destroying this great nation, and I'm not going to meet that fact with Buddhistic equanimity, nor am I going to seriously consider the counsel of those who would argue that we should.
August 23, 2005 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL--1800 dead, 14,000 injured and billions spent for what? First, a snipe hunt for nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, and then to set up the Holy Islamic Republic of Iraq (or "Iran West," as it's known for short). We stopped hunting for Osama bin Laden to achieve this? Seriously?
BRILLIANT. If this president were a Democrat, he'd be burned in effigy in DuPont Circle. And rightly so.
August 24, 2005 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why are Americans participating at all in the writing of another country's constitution?
We're participating because we are currently the only party with an interest in the overall stability of Iraq, rather than specific gains for sectarian interests. We're also participating because we have lot more experience with liberal constitutionalism than the Iraqis do.
There is a precedent for this. The Japanese constitution was written by a committee of Americans in little more than a week. It has come to be embraced by Japanese as their own, and its a foundation on which modern, liberal Japan rests. Given the very different circumstances of the occupation of Iraq (most significantly that our invasion did not result in a total acceptance of defeat by Iraqis) our ability to duplicate what was done in Japan is limited.
However, to the extent that we can shape the Iraqi constitution in a way that protects minority rights, religious freedom, etc.. it is in the long-term interest of the Iraqi people to do so. Is this paternalistic? Absolutely. But sometimes there are worse things than paternalism.
August 24, 2005 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I think we're doing it because we're the only nation with the desire to invade Iraq, turn it into a territory, and proceed to drag it to freedom.
If the US can get Iraq to accept Turkey's constitution, great, but what signs do you see of religious feedom and rights for the Sunni minority or for women?
If I were searching for the word to describe why we're participating, I'd choose hubris.
August 25, 2005 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink