This is certainly intriguing:

In the early morning, U.S. and Iraqi forces clashed with gunmen loyal to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, killing at least eight Iraqis in an east Baghdad slum. The clash was certain to heighten tensions between U.S. and Iraqi security forces and followers of al-Sadr, who is building opposition to the country's new constitution, which will be put to voters in an Oct. 15 referendum. . . .

Al-Sadr, whose al-Mahdi Army has refrained from confrontations with the U.S. military since their last battle in August 2004, also sided with the Sunnis in objecting to the constitution.

Overcoming opposition from al-Sadr is seen as key to securing the necessary votes.

But the task has become increasingly difficult after British forces arrested two al-Mahdi Army officials in the southern city of Basra about a week ago. Militiamen and residents also clashed with British troops days later after two British soldiers were detained by Iraqi authorities.

Suffice it to say that there's something a bit unorthodox about simultaneously courting someone's support at the ballot box and waging gun battles with his followers. You can see how this might work, though, in a classic carrots-and-sticks manner. Offer Sadr some role in the government if he plays ball with the constitution, but make it clear that we'll shoot at him if he doesn't support ratification. On the other hand, referenda don't wind up being very democratic if you get them to pass by threatening to shoot and kill political parties who oppose them. California politics, however, would be a lot more interesting were we to adopt this model here at home.