A Bunch of Nonsense or a “Draft Constitution” for Iraq?

It might sound absurd to discuss and comment on constitution for a country that rights and privileges are still directly proportional to the size and the number of guns any group possess in that country. A place where arbitrary decision-making and use of violence to implement those decisions are the first instinctive choice curved in the psyche of its people. Nonetheless, to end that uncivilized and dangerous phenomenon a constitution will be the first and a very important step for Iraqis to take, so they can establish a strong foundation that would enable them to rebuild their lives peacefully and rise into modern times. However, the mean of that transition “the constitution” must be designed in such way that it would deliver the people of Iraq to a right destination not back to the middle ages or to a civil war.

Now Iraqis are told a draft constitution is ready for them to vote on in a referendum in the middle of October, and already a publicly funded propaganda campaign is intensely underway in all the modes of media to convince people of Iraq to say yes to make the document legal.

Upon reviewing the document I believe a bunch of nonsense will be a better and a more descriptive title for it than a “draft constitution”. The document has so many contradicting statements and bad choices one can’t help it but to be concerned about the mental well being of the committee of experts, politicians, and so called intellectuals who were in charge of this important task, and after several month of hard work only this absurdity was the fruit of their labor.

You don’t need a magnifying glass to look for the fine print to find the nonsense and the bad choices in the document from the very beginning any normal reader is given a big sign that the rest of the document is waste of the paper that it is printed on. For example: The first article states that Iraq will be a federal state, but the rest of the document describes a very centralized power that controls everything from Baghdad, and Baghdad being the centre of that power is even embedded in the document. And, article (2) statement “A” “B” and “C” not only contradict each other, but makes the rest of the document obsolete and unnecessary because according to those three statement no law ever can be passed in Iraq that does not violate one of them because if a law is in compliance with the “rules of Islam”, it will violate the “principles of democracy” likewise, if a law respects human rights and democracy, it will violate the principles of Islam, so a circle is created for every law to be debated and rejected indefinitely.

The problem even starts before the contradiction between Islam and democracy and human rights because the terms “rules of Islam” itself is subject to numerous interpretations, and who ever is familiar with the subject will know that aside from two facts that all Muslims agree up on which are: first all Muslims believe in one creator “god”, and two, they all agree that Mohammed is his messenger, there is no other principle that is not subject to different interpretation of different doctrines of Islamic sects.

The obstacle of “Islamic principles” is not limited to the rights of women, non-believers, and other religious groups, but also a simple thing like a financial institution could be shut down if it charges or takes any interest on money transactions because according to Islam taking or receiving interest on money is a sin.

Those who are eager to hold on to power by any slogan and mean will argue that they will not interpret Islam in a way that it would turn Iraq into another Afghanistan, or Iranian style of government. In my opinion that selective use of Islam is just as dangerous as the total use because that makes the constitution an unnecessary document and lays the foundation of deception and bigotry to build an undemocratic and backward regime in Iraq in which the law will be applied based on convenience not principle.

Although, no one likes the truth, but the reason for the contradictions and the difficulties that was facing the compilers of a constitution for Iraq under that unfavorable circumstances is very obvious and it is a historic redundancy.

Since its conception modern Iraq faced violence and unrest because the diverse people of that country were never given a chance to truly express their desire for the type of government that they want. They were forced by outsiders to live together and accept something that was doomed from the start, but it provided ample political and economical opportunities for colonial and imperial powers to have in that region That was at the end of WWI when modern Iraq was created by putting three Ottoman provinces together.

Since the defeat of the Iraqi regime in 2003, America is attempting to rebuild Iraq on the same rotten foundations, but with more up to date laws that would protect their interest in that country and the region, and that means more violence and unrest for Iraq in the future.

Even if Iraq is prevented from breaking up and creating a more cohesive states in its place, there is no need for the kind of backwardness that is shoved down the throat of Iraqis by foreigners and their thugs in Iraq. It is possible to keep Iraq as one country and yet give its diverse people in deferent regions a complete control of their own destiny.

We have expressed our methodology for this type of government for Iraq in the past, and that is by dividing the country into regions based on the desire of its people which region they want to belong to, and each region to be completely in charge of all its political, economical, and defense system. A small and symbolic federal government has to be created with equal contribution from each region to coordinate common defense, foreign relations, and internal cooperation between the regions just as EU doing for its member states. And this will eliminate the need for such a broad and contradicting federal constitution because each region will going to have its own constitution, so if Shiites in the south want an Islamic state and the Kurds in the north want a secular state they both can created without resorting to deception and violence, or lengthy and unnecessary negotiation with each other to find a common denominator which may not exist.

Beside dictatorship this will be the only plausible way to keep Iraq together as one country, and at the same time grant its people freedom to choose. The situation is extremely dangerous in Iraq, and this puts a greater burden on the shoulders of its leaders to have wisdom and think rationally, so they could be able to help the Iraqis to build a better future.

The proposed constitution is a recipe for disaster and all Iraqis stand to lose if it is ratified, thus we strongly urge all Iraqis to say “NO” to it, and at the same time urge the leaders not to give in to foreign pressure and come up with ideas that take the interest of Iraqis into consideration.

Mirza Nammo

Tuesday, October 04, 2005

Canada

Home