Week 12

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?

10 thoughts on “Week 12

  1. Gordon Woodworth

    As most of us have argued, it seems as if ethnic and religious divisions, primarily between Kurds, Sunnis, and Shi’as, are the major obstacle facing Iraq today. My first instinct would be to continue the unofficial confessional system currently in place for top leadership posts in the government, where each group is guaranteed a certain amount of top-level influence. However, as we’ve seen in the history of Lebanon, this type of system can easily be abused if censuses are spaced out decades apart, unable to account for shifting demographics. Therefore, it seems like the best option is move towards federalism as a means of guaranteeing minority rights. This would be largely effective as the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shi’as hold majorities in well-defined regions, rather than being evenly inter-mixed throughout Iraq. To account for the inter-mixing that is present, particularly in Bagdhad, there would also need to be strong protections for minority rights written in to the constitution.
    These two aspects are present in the current constitution, which is promising. The hope is that the current system will last long enough for each group to have a stake in its continued existence, rather than having them look to discard the constitution that was imposed from outside in favor of a style of rule primarily favorable to their particular sectarian group.

  2. Jakob Terwitte

    As my classmates have pointed out, the biggest challenges for post-Saddam Iraq revolve around sectarian violence. The Kurds, Shi’a and Sunni all have various claims and the future constitution will have to address these differences. Past grievances and injustices experienced by the Shi’a and Kurds make the various claims especially problematic, as a constitution that aims to rectify all past happenings by default cannot be lasting.
    If a division of the country is not an option, the constitution would need to establish electoral system that represents the different groups and interests in a strong national parliament. This is difficult to achieve, of course, because there are many more Shi’a than Sunni, for example, so they Sunni will feel less represented. One solution to this could be a federal system in which different regions have a lot of freedom to accommodate their own constituency, while still operating under the national umbrella.
    For this to happen, a couple of requirements would need to be fulfilled though. There would first need to be leaders from all identity groups willing to work for the national government, accepting that not all desires will be fulfilled. An acceptance of compromise as the way to go will be key.
    Lastly, I feel that the issue of resource distribution is most crucial. At the heart of almost all ethnic conflicts around the world ultimately lies a resource, not religion. The new constitution would need to be able to provide a fair share of oil and gas resources to each of the regions in the federal system as well as the national government. An independent body will have to oversee the distribution of the money.

  3. David Cutler

    Sectarian clashes are disastrous for physical security and political stability, but I also think that it’s hard to overestimate the destabilizing effects of poor infrastructure and trampled dignity. In fact, I would say that bad living conditions and fading visions of Iraqi glory are root causes of violent sectarianism, and not the other way around. After all, religious and ethnic cleavages have always been present in the region, but they have not always led to bloodshed or undermined the political system. Anthony Shadid documents more complaints about electricity outages than anything else. People without prospects, comforts, security, and pride will grow desperate, and it is this desperation that is preyed upon by religious extremists and terrorist recruiters.

    Therefore, I would focus on civil rights in the new constitution, and more importantly, I would make sure that these rights are aggressively defended. In the real world, that means providing people with the basic services that they need in order to live safety and freely: electricity, education, rule of law, etc. Electricity in itself may not be a civil right, but electricity facilitates physical safety, uncensored information, and political participation, among other freedoms. If human rights and civil society flourish, unbridled sectarianism will be diminished. Or at least I hope so, because I think that most other approaches to the religious and ethnic divides—short of absolute partition a la Pakistan or South Sudan—will only lead to further segmentation and demonization on all sides, regardless of any possible short-term benefits.

  4. Zachary Abdu-Glass

    I think that the hardest part of living in new Iraq will be the integration and cooperation of the different ethnic/religious sects. Iraq has for so long oppressed the Kurds and the Shi’a that it’s nearly impossible to reconcile the differences between the groups. People have been dehumanized and brutalized in such a way that it is extremely difficult to get them to cooperate together.

    As for a new constitution, I think it would have to be rigid in structure and support a proportional representation system. Everyone has to be included, otherwise there’s not even a chance for the current climate to get better. In all honesty, I don’t have much hope for Iraq and I don’t think that the right type of constitution would make much of a difference. I think they’re way past needing a new constitution. The government needs to create stability in the country before anything else. I hate to say it, but things were at least stable under Saddam. He himself wasn’t necessarily stable, but he kept the nation in fear and kept them quiet. Without stability, however, the government won’t have the trust of its people and will probably redescend into chaos.

  5. Emma Kramer

    Similar to Carl, I believe that a daunting challenge to the success of the Iraqi state is developing a positive relationship between the government and the public. Kanan Makiya writes, “For six decades the Iraqi army acted as an agent for internal repression. Before the Iraq-Iran war, its only engagement with a foreign power was in May 1941… Contributions to Arab-Israeli wars have been nil, or purely token. In the October 1973 war, two divisions and a part of the air force fought on the Syrian front; bu the bulk of the army was held back for deployment against Iraqi Kurds” (Makiya 21). This quote is interesting because it shows the Iraq’s army was mainly used for internal repression of its own people. A country that consistently needs to repress its own people does not have a good relationship between the public and the government. There is no trust, no communication and no cohesion. A country that does not rule with the best interest of its people in mind cannot be successful. All of the current Iraqi citizens have grown up in a country with such a government. They have learned not to trust political leaders and are only familiar with a government overrun with corruption. In addition, this quote shows the difficult diversity within Iraq. The Sunni government could not fight in the Arab- Israeli war because it was too preoccupied with repression the Kurds in the north. As there is no cohesion between the government and the people, there is no cohesion between the different elasticities of people in the country.

  6. Zachary Dallmeyer-Drennen

    As I’m sure most of my classmates will agree, the biggest challenge for the New Iraq is managing the sectarian differences into a workable state. During his reign, Saddam and his Ba’ath party intentionally played up these differences in order to maintain the loyalty of Sunnis. His persecution of Shiites and Kurds created a lot of ill-will between them and the Sunnis, and these wounds – only exacerbated by United States policies during the occupation – will take a long time to heal. The system that we’ve put into place there now has shown itself to be incredibly unwieldy and has often made the American Congress look efficient by comparison.

    While I watched the debate set off by the introduction of the Biden plan that would partition the country into three parts in 2006 with interest and originally support, a lot of precedents show that splitting up a country along sectarian lines is a recipe for tragedy and bloodshed. An independent Kurdistan upsets Turkey, a NATO member and important hedge against a potentially nuclear Iran. An independent Shi’a block of Iraq risks absorption into this Iranian orbit. The only solution that will create an Iraq that functions in the long time is to find ways to minimize these splits. Iraqis must learn to define themselves as Iraqis first. I’d suggest a Constitution that does not create quotas for each sect, but that has a low-enough barrier to entry that each group can have a voice. Once Sunni and Shi’a Iraqis don’t see each other as enemies anymore and as fellow citizens instead, there will finally be a free democratic Iraq.

  7. Carl Gayle

    I think the biggest challenge for post-Saddam Iraq is overcoming the Republic fear. There is a level of insecurity amongst the Iraqi people that prevents them from trusting the government. What’s more the government doesn’t help mitigate this tension with their frivolous spending and luxurious benefits. The people are still reeling from the remnants of Saddam’s regime where they knew everything was unjust, but were effortless to stop it. Gaining a sense of trust between the government and the people is the first step to improving Iraq.

    Another major focus would be to address the differences between Sunni/Shi’ groups which have plagued the region for many years. The constitution would predominantly focus on this issue and solve it by affirming difference. Being in Australia for a semester opened my eyes to the beauty of a multicultural society by law. Acknowledging the difference between groups and celebrating it through legislation inherently fosters a sense of solidarity and pride in a nation. If groups feel they are valued and respected then I think the violence between these groups will greatly diminish. This goes the same for the Kurds. Any form of constitution must affirm the differences of each group and validate their presence, whether it be through legislations of land grants. While it may not completely appease these groups it will satiate their need for bloodshed to an extent. Sorry Professor Mecham, just read the prompt again and realized it said lasting stability, I can’t give you that in any country. I only have temporary solutions, hope they satisfy. Lasting stability is unattainable (pessimism at its peak).

  8. Jordan Weiss

    I think one of the biggest problems that Iraq has faced since the fall of Saddam Hussein is the conflict between the many political, ethnic, and religious factions in Iraqi society. Tension and violence between Sunni, Shia, and Kurds is probably the most prevalent and worrisome, and Anthony Shadid quotes one Iraqi woman as saying, “If the Americans left, massacres would happen in Iraq – between the tribes, between the parties, and between the Sunnis and Shias, of course.” Though the majority of the Iraqi population is actually Shia, Saddam Hussein and the Ba’ath Party leaders were all Sunni, and as a result, Shias were actively oppressed during Hussein’s regime. Understandably then, there are strong feelings of distrust and hate on the part of Shia toward Sunni, yet there is also hope that now would be their time to gain power. Shadid illustrates the sense of relief and happiness felt by Shia Muslims in holy cities such as Karbala after the fall of Hussein, and he also depicts the bombing of these same places as possibly being an attempt to fuel sectarian violence. Shia Iraqi cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, established the Mahdi Army in 2003 both to combat U.S. troops and to establish Shia dominance in the new Iraq. Shadid outlines many of his army’s violent acts, which have all furthered Sectarianism and made establishing a functioning democracy difficult to say the least.

    Therefore, in order to build a nation that could expect any sort of long-term stability, I believe it would be paramount to address the sectarian differences and try to put a stop to the constant power struggles between the groups. Honestly, I do not know how to address the Kurdish problem since that comes down to an issue of nationalism, and I don’t know if there is any way to appease the Kurds without allowing them to secede. Perhaps if some sort of quasi-autonomous government could be set up in Kurdish regions so that it would still technically be Iraqi soil, yet at the same time they could exercise power over themselves and control their own domestic affairs. As for the Sunni/Shia conflicts, I think assuring each group that they would be fairly represented in whatever kind of government is established would be key. Whether that means allotting certain percentages of seats based on population or just having a fixed minimum number of seats for each sect, I think offering this type of security would be a good way to decrease levels of violence since maybe the groups would feel less of a need to establish their dominance over the other.

  9. Laurence Langley

    Although the political situation in Iraq is probably better now at any time since the US-led invasion, the country still has a long way to go to get to a comfortable level of stability and security. Besides the social instability and political unrest that the invasion created in the country, I think the ethnic diversity in Iraq poses even greater challenges for future hopes of peace and inclusion. Minorities like the Kurds and the Assyrians have historically had a very difficult time with the Iraqi regimes since the country’s creation. The new challenge will be so equally incorporate the voices of all of the minorities which comprise the Iraqi population. Any kind of new constitution needs to call for equal treatment of all of the minorities and people in the country regardless of religion or ethnicity. This certainly will not alleviate all of the problems. Once this general law is established, there will need to be continued effort on the parts of all of the constituents to attempt to have fair elections and equitable representation of he political parties of some of these majority groups. The problem arises in the reality that, simply based on numbers, Shia Arabs make up a majority of the ethnic makeup of the country. So even if a situation arose where all parties and ethnic groups were fairly represented, the numbers game would probably continue to play to the disadvantage of many of their interests. Due to the nature of the treatment of the Sunnis and especially the Kurds, it could be a long time before political tensions calm in the country. Iraq is unfortunately in a situation where there may be no easy fix to having fair representation among all of the groups that comprise the country.

  10. Kathryn Nagel

    Post-Saddam Iraq must face the challenges of a divided society suffering from a history fraught with grievances. Since it’s formation in 1920, Iraq has contained an ethnically diverse population. The different factions within the country must now come together and find a way to govern peaceably together. Before Saddam was overthrown, Iraq was ruled primarily by the Sunni Ba’th party. Despite constituting the majority of the population, Shi’ites and Kurds were given little say in government and were severely repressed. Decades of oppression, mass murder, and unjust treatment have created hard feelings. In order to avoid a spiraling blame cycle, these issues must be addressed upfront. Appropriate representation in a new government must be granted to Shi’ites, Kurds, and Sunnis. Sunni sensitivity towards losing power and fear of retribution for past wrongs will be an explosive issue, so the constitution must specifically ensure that Sunnis retain some power and not be held accountable for what happened under Saddam’s regime. At the same time, the fact that Shi’ites and Kurds were treated as second-class citizens for so long puts them at an economic and educational disadvantage. Additionally, much of Iraqi society is completely ravaged from war and occupation. To help the country recover from these traumas, specific efforts to rebuild society and distribute resources need to a primary concern for a new Iraqi government.

    Considering these issues, I think the Iraqi constitution should have several main components. First, it must include a bill of rights guaranteeing the rights of every citizen regardless of religion or ethnicity. One of the problems under Saddam’s regime was unexplained arrests, torture, and killings. To prevent this from reoccurring, the constitution must detail a judicial process in which every citizen has the right to a fair trial. Finally, the constitution must set up a system of governance in which every faction is guaranteed representation. Details outlining governmental design must ensure that manipulation of elections doesn’t alter the representation in such a way that one party can take over. There should be a system of checks and balances where different factions are responsible for overseeing each other. Additionally, a unique feature of Iraq is the relatively independent Kurdish faction in the north. Kurds have always asked for autonomy, and a modern Iraqi government will more likely be successful if this wish is addressed. The Iraqi constitution should allow for the Kurds to have some autonomy. If a Kurdish territory is established with a somewhat separate government responsible for deciding many of its own laws that is still part of the overall Iraqi government, hopefully Kurdish tensions will be reduced.

Leave a Reply