What do you think are the biggest challenges for post-Saddam Iraq and why? If you were to design a constitution for Iraq to provide for lasting stability, what would be its main components, and why? How could the right constitutional design appropriately manage the challenges you see?
12 thoughts on “Week 12”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I identify dual challenges for post-Saddam Iraq: one ideological challenge and one structural challenge.
1. A new Iraqi government will have to represent diverse ethnic and religious groups in order to address their various needs and desires. Created under a British mandate, the state of Iraq encompasses various ethnic and religious groups that did not identify with each other historically. The Iraqi “nation” is a modern creation, fraught with sectarian violence from its inception. In order to build a new state post-war, each of these groups will have to be represented and none treated like second-class citizens. This is necessary to provide basic human rights, of course; but also, on a quite practical level, continued conflict will not curb if certain groups feel disenfranchised.
2. The second challenge is that the destruction of physical and social institutions during both the Iran-Iraq war and the most recent war will provide obstacles to rebuilding basic public services, such as health and education systems.
It seems a parliamentary system would be a good way to provide representation for the various groups within Iraq. I would be a proponent of a low threshold to ensure broader representation. I agree with Sarah that a federal system would be appropriate in Iraq. This would further ensure representation of the various ethnic and religious groups. I think women must be given the right to vote in order to ensure that they are represented as well. Furthermore, the new Iraqi government must be secular so as not to favor either the Sunni or the Shi’as. The judiciary must be somewhat independent of the executive, perhaps by giving them terms for life as we do in the United States. Finally, freedom of speech, movement and religion must be guaranteed.
Though a new and well-designed constitution may do something to promote a stable democracy in Iraq, I think we’re fooling ourselves a bit if we think that constitutional constraints would be enough to manage all of the challenges that Iraq faces. Under “normal” circumstances, a state with as much ethnic division as Iraq faces trouble with stability and cooperation; in Iraq, that issue is multiplied by the fact that the country was just invaded and ravaged by the United States of America, and faced years of oppressive, dictatorial rule under Saddam Hussein. And as much as the US has tried to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure and maintain a military presence until the region stabilizes, one can make a salient argument that most of those attempts have failed. Therefore, Iraq’s constitutional challenges extend to re-development and demilitarization after war, and reestablishment of trust and the settling of grievances accumulated after the fall of a brutal police state. That’s a lot to ask a constitution to do.
However, one can still consider possible components of an Iraqi constitution. I think that a Parliamentary system with PR elections is a pretty good start. Iraq needs a democracy that promotes multiparty rule and actually empowers all of those parties. Though I understand the argument for high parliamentary thresholds, it seems that there is also a case to be made for low parliamentary thresholds that would allow for more diverse representation and require cooperation. Additionally, I think that insisting on a secular government so as to avoid Sunni-Shi’ite disputes over the application of Shari’a or the interpretation of Islamic text is important. Given the regional divisions of the various ethnic and religious groups, Iraq could benefit from a highly federal system as well. This could be achieved with a bicameral legislature in which one of the legislative bodies, rather than using a PR electoral system, relies on regions to directly elect local representatives. Or, Iraq could use small, local governments with specified levels of autonomy. Finally, the new constitution would hopefully guarantee equality and basic civil liberties.
Nevertheless, I’m not necessarily that hopeful. I want to be an eternal optimist, but Lebanon has shown us that even the most carefully designed constitutions do little to diffuse sectarian violence. Iraq is already seeing increased levels of violence, and seems to be on the verge of extensive combat between Shi’ite and Sunni forces. Assembling a Parliament and putting both Sunni and Shi’ite representatives in a room to “talk it through” doesn’t seem to promise peace and successful democratic transition.
In my mind the biggest challenge faced by the Iraqis is the transition from living under a dictatorship to a democratic government. Many reflect that they want neither Saddam nor the American occupation, yet what they want exactly is impossible to identify. Various intrinsic factors in Iraq have been preventing a smooth transition, such as tribalism, ethnic division, a lack of social capital and a weak police force. To overcome these embedded problem, a very strong and formidable constitution is necessary. The very first step and the priority is to establish the constitution’s credibility – a important factor for the people’s transition into a democratic life – so in my mind the construction of the constitution should explicitly clarify the enforcement mechanism. The constitution should also clarify the nation’s power structure, political autonomy of civil society, and various fundamental human rights. This is imperative because without a clear guidance the Iraqis have no way to understand how democracy should function. Therefore, constitution should be established so that it is credible, and it is directional. Fundamentally, it should comprise items that are essential to democracy, which can be learned from the constitutions of currently democratic countries.
I think one of the biggest challenges will be to establish a trustworthy government that represents the ideas of the people while providing the basic services and stability necessary. Especially with the US troops pulling out, the Iraqis have a chance to mold their government to their own needs. As Makiya quotes an Iraqi man Ahmed Abdullah, “We are a Muslim country…if we’re the be freed from the regime, we’re the ones responsible for freeing ourselves”. Now that Hussein is dead the people need to establish a government that conforms to their Muslim, Arab cultural needs they claim United States influence cannot give them.
Going along similar lines, Iraq needs to establish a new sense of political trust that was lacking throughout Sadaam’s regime, something that could be instituted in their constitution. With the ruling of the Ba’thist party, Shadid suggests that nobody dared to ridicule authority any longer in Iraq because everyone was afraid (45). With such a history of violence, secret police, and distrust between the government and its people it will be hard to have the people openly voice their opinions without fear of repercussions. A government that establishes a civil society based on pleasing the people rather than satisfying their own party needs to be established, which is hard considering the diverse population and conflicting groups.
A new constitution could be established to promote unity as well, encouraging or giving an incentive for loyalty to Iraq rather than all of the individual groups, relgions, and ethnicities within. A constitution that addresses the religious tensions, establishing no preference would need to be created. I don’t think this is realistic, however, with such a violence prone country filled with distrust.
In order for this new constitution to work, there needs to be respect and faith from the Shi’as, Sunnis, Kurds, and Assyrians in this important document. Post-Saddam Iraq is split by ethnic, sectarian, and tribal loyalties and how to bridge these divisions should be the biggest challenge the new constitution addresses. Simply stated, I want the people to feel that they can all rely the constitution so that they do not have to end with violence out of desperation. The Shi’a majority and Kurdish population felt discriminated against when the Sunni minority gained dominance with Saddam Hussein’s rule. These tensions and divisions have crossed over to the post-Saddam Iraq. Even now, Prime Minister Maliki isn’t helping the situation. He has made many promises to the Iraqi people, but is not necessarily following through, plus government officials have granted themselves high salaries with generous benefits…there is only so much patience the public has towards him and his cronies. He’s using the government as an elite tool and this is just creating an even bigger gap between the government and the people.
I believe that a new constitution should create a government based on the parliamentary system. This would hopefully work due to Iraq’s multi-ethnic and multi-religious population, which will probably need representation through multiple parties. I agree with Cate that the threshold should be high just like in Turkey. Also, a parliamentary system will cause coalitions to form so that not one ideology dominates. Hopefully with better representation of the people’s concerns, there will be better responses to their needs. The constitution would also include basic freedoms such as freedom of speech and press, freedom of speech, right to privacy, right to equal protection under the law regardless of ethnicity or religion, right to vote. There would be free, universal healthcare and education (similar to that of France). Also- since I have a say in this constitution- I believe that there should be something in this about protecting cultural heritage (ex: artifacts, sites) because it is intimately linked to the people’s identity. This might not specifically contribute to lasting political stability, but it is important to remember the past.
Shadid succinctly states one large problem of post-Saddam Iraq, from an international perspective: “the country’s liberation from Saddam’s rule had again opened it to influences that were then tailored to fighting the American-led occupation (364).” According to Shadid, the Iraqi people were highly influenced by the doctrine of Hezbollah, ascribing to a distinctly Shiite movement and the power of a unified Arab world. Most importantly, Israel and America are the two enemies of an Arab constituency, radicalized by years of violence and occupation.
As far as foreign support goes for a new constitution, I am confident that less is more. Let’s listen to the principles of laissez-faire and let the Iraqi government negotiate a new balance of power between the different ethnic sects of Iraqi society. Perhaps the wave of elections sweeping Egypt and Tunisia may provide an example of how a Parliamentary democracy could function in Iraq.
I believe Iraq would be smart to take a cue from Turkey and have a high Parliamentary threshold if a democracy is ever established. There are such ideological/religious divisions between the Shias, Sunnis, Kurds and Assyrians that I think any one in power will suffer great political challenges if it does not secure majority support. Given the prevalence of weapons and tribal ties in post-Saddam Iraq, political ‘buy-in’ will be incredibly important.
So if the new Parliament intends to create a constitution that people will support, I believe the main tenants should include:
1. Freedom of speech, religious expression, internet etc.
2. Equal voting representation, regardless of religious/ethnic ties
3. Equal access to natural/governmental resources (including education, healthcare, water, transportation etc.)
4. A military that operates outside of the Parliament. But I would like to discuss this tomorrow…I don’t really have a clear idea of what this would look like…
5. Court system, with a jury that equally represents ethnic minorities for every trial. Integration is key.
I think that the most formidable challenge to Iraq’s development towards becoming a stable and prosperous nation is the prevailing divisiveness in its politics that is rooted not in an ideological dispute but rather ethnic backgrounds of voters and leaders. In failing to create a cohesive government Iraq will find it enormously difficult to address other challenges such as infrastructural development and cultivation of a new national identity. 8 years of war have left the country with a major gap in its quest to establish this essential sense of identity following the ousting of a ruler who, for so many years, defined the nation through himself and used violent repression to deal with the fragmented ethnic composition of Iraq.
I found the constitutional provisions of the 2005 draft to be inadequate in terms of how they dealt with the problem of distributing power. I feel that the constitution would have to balance broad appeal with a reasonable degree of centralized power to offset the autonomy necessary to satisfy the disparate ethnic groups. Therefore the distinction between Federal and state level governance needs to be revised in a new constitution to deal specifically with the manner in which power is distributed amongst the three branches of government. Too much power consolidation in the hands of the majority Shi’as would have destabilizing consequences, as they could seek to marginalize the Sunnis and Kurds. Therefore Iraq’s new constitution would have to define very clearly the composition of the cabinet and ministries with respect to ethnic background in an attempt to create a functional democracy while balancing the collective interests of a nation’s people.
A constitution drafted independently of the United States’ influence and with the approval and buy-in of all ethnic and religious sects of Iraq would give the country a keystone from which to build a new nation. Much of the country’s instability appears to be derived from an internal perception that the state is constantly being influenced by external forces (which is more often than not the case) and consequent feeling that it is not “their nation”. Drafting an inclusive constitution that binds together the different sects would provide an internally conceived document and provide the sense of national identity that is vital to Iraq’s future success.
Saddam’s policies and actions while ruling Iraq caused a deepening of sectarian tensions. In consolidating his power in the Sunni triangle he used his army to brutally suppress Kurds to the north and Shi’ites to the south. He killed thousands of Kurds in his gassing campaign in the mountains of northern Iraq, and tens of thousands of Shi’ites in the marshlands of the south after their uprisings following Saddam’s defeat in the First Gulf War in Kuwait. All of this repression aggravated already very strained relations among the ethnic groups of Iraq, and has resulted in sectarian violence and guerilla warfare in post-Saddam Iraq.
One of the biggest US mistakes made in attempting to reconstruct Iraq after deposing Saddam was restricting any political figure with connections to the Ba’ath party from participating in the new government or writing the new constitution. This meant that most political figures in Iraq, who had joined the Ba’ath party in order to avoid persecution under Saddam and to have a job (virtually unattainable without party membership under Saddam’s rule), were ineligible to participate in the formation of a new order in Iraq. Thus, there was a lack of experienced politicians available to form a new government in Iraq, which has made the transition of power from the US to Iraq much more difficult.
In order to avoid issues of separatism among the various provincial governments of Iraq, I think it would be wise to give the central government more power than it is currently provided under Iraq’s constitution. It is understandable that provinces were created following geographic and historical markings rather than ethnic or religions lines in order to avoid further sectarianism. Resource policy, particularly the right of provinces to own and exploit new gas and oil resources within their borders, seems like it might create inequalities and potential for warring among provinces. It might be better to make the distribution and ownership of all resources the responsibility of the central government.
I think the single most important thing in any attempt to build a free and fair Iraq is the building of a certain political structure which either appropriately incorporates the ideologies of the nation’s citizens, or establishes a political structure which can function apart from the ideological structure which Iran has been built upon. What becomes very clear from Kanan Makiya’s book is that the Iraqi politics and culture has made “homemade ideology a positive thing” (74) in which a person or party’s personal ideologies are often granted enough legitimacy to be thought of motivating political principles. Behind the guise of a strong and motivating ideology, such as waht the Ba’ath party offered for a large part of the 20th century, the “language of politics” (100) can be changed and degraded towards a myriad of ends through what Makiya often calls “myth-making”.
The Ba’ath party utilized this tool to degrading ends, but highlighted a key characteristic of Iraqi culture, people want to believe in something. Any sort of secular constitution has to recognize this and in order to deal with practical problems such as representational inequality among the nations many ethnicities and religious groups; specifically Shi’ites, Sunnis, Kurds, and Assyrians, a binding and uniftying bill of rights for individual citizens much be established so that all Iraqi people can share in a set of ideals which appeal to their nationalism as much as their self-interest. To support this equality, I think the establishment of a functioning and fair system of proportional representation could have the potential to level the political playing field.
There is no doubt that Iraq has undergone serious upheaval and unrest in the past 10 year but it also clear, especially from the first hand experience of Anthony Shadid in “Night Draws Near” that there exists a desire for change within the Iraqi people, and there is a sense that given the proper agency and legitimacy to rebuild their own political system the revival felt after Sadaam’s fall could be found again to reweave the fabrics of Iraqi government
I think that one of the biggest challenges ahead for Iraq is to maintain some sort of democracy in which all voices have the opportunity to be heard. With a long history of authoritarian rule and military takeovers, there is little basis on which Iraqis would stick to the rules of democracy. With strong populations of varying groups (Shi’a, Sunni, and Kurds), it is too easy to think that one will want to raise its voice above the leader, leading to a coup. Already there is a civil war in Iraq based around these tensions, not boding well for the future. The other key in terms of democracy is keeping Iraq’s government Iraqi and not American. As America (hopefully) steps down and leaves, I would hope that the altruistic elements of democracy, those that are actually effective in maintaining order and representing the people, stick and that America is not the only thing keeping (however delicately) a semblance of democracy in the country. There are many issues that face every day Iraqis, such as electricity, that need to be heard by the government and a true democracy is the best way for that to come about. I am not sure how much faith I have in such a delicate political climate, more used to authoritarian dictators and military intervention than democracy, to make sure that the people are represented however I hope that post-US occupation, the Iraqi government can be a servant to its people.
I think that I am extremely biased in saying that the US constitution does have salient aspects that protect freedoms and insure democracy. Although our constitution is not perfect, nor is the follow through in our government, ideas like freedom of speech protect the population. I think that in order for Iraq to move ahead, there needs to be a peace between ethnic lines and a cohesiveness in rights and freedoms. I do not think that a direct translation of our constitution is the right thing as I also believe that the US should allow Iraq to separate itself from the US in terms of its government. We have imposed ourselves in many ways over the past decade, and although Iraq is fragile, it also needs to find its own M.O.
After reading some posts of my classmates from other sections I realized that the way I view post-Suddam Iraq differs from that of my classmates. At the end of Suddam’s rule, we see the end of the last hopes of authority and power that was held by the Sunni minority. In my opinion, Suddam’s capture and execution only further deepened the Sunni feeling of being marginalized and oppressed. This consequently has lead to an even more robust front against US influence in Iraq. Furthermore, as the shi’a’s now maintain power in government it seems undeniable that Iraq will operate in a sectarian fashion. The diverse culture of Iraq, encompassing Sunnis, Kurds and Shias has resulted in consistent distrust among inhabitants.
This idea aside, it is clear from the readings that the quality of life in Iraq remains low, without basic necessities. These necessities include education, electricity and food but also the basic need for security with the government and with civilians.
In terms of how I would see constitution in Iraq. I honestly have no concrete or possible implementable ideas. However, I think it would be important to create a steadfast constitution when one is created. This would be necessary to prevent a partisan government coming in and using a more vague and lenient constitution to consolidate their own power. Furthermore, for a society that is always nervous about what could happen to their family, jobs or lives, there is something to be said for a document that would emulate one of societies most visceral desires.
Furthermore, the constitution would require that the military maintain some autonomy aside from the central government. I honestly have no idea why this seems important. I suppose that my real issue is that I would not want to military to be ruled by one minority. If that is the case, then it is likely that the minority can use the military power to consolidate their own, illegitimate rule with fear.
Also, I was thinking about the constitution in comparison to another country that has a similar diverse community, Lebanon. I am wondering whether the idea of a confessional system would be something to try in Iraq. I was tossing up this idea, and thinking that you could create a government in which each culture group is represented by a representative number of seats. However, as Lebanon has shown us, this does not always work as one would hope. In addition, with the sectarian animosity in Iraq, this probably is not a viable solution.
The Iraqi Shi’ites suffered systematic assault on their political rights, religious freedom and general way of life during the seven decades that the Sunni minority was in power. This led to what some consider the start of the Iraqi civil war in 2004.The Sunni insurgents started a guerrilla warfare in hopes of driving out the US and regaining the power they held under Saddam. The Shiite then launched their own militia in hopes of defending themselves from the Sunni insurgents. This led to increased gang violence within Iraq.
The above example is characteristic of one of the biggest problems that will continue to plague post Saddam Iraq; Shiite and Sunni tensions. Reaching a secular constitutional democracy will be hard because as it stands both sides seem unwilling to negotiate.Above everything else, The Constitution will have to emphasize equality between the two religious groups regardless of their history.
This will be hard to do as one group was systemically marginalized by another. This would not be a problem if the group that was marginalized was an actual minority(if it were a minority, it would be easier to have affirmative action) If we were currently to have a true representative democracy I believe it would look somewhat like South Africa. Yes, it is a democratic country, but issues that the government would prioritize, like South Africa, will be ones that empower the previously oppressed minority…which is actually a majority. so the Sunnis might end up in the same position the shiite were in.
Other challenges Iraq will have to deal with will be its relationship with Iran, effective use of oil revenue and building up institutions. I think a constitution that allows religious freedom while still being secular will be effective in making sure that relations with Iraq stay diplomatic. Finally its up to the institutions they put in place to make sure they are able to build up their economy again.