ninme

Tim Worstall shows off the Iraqi Constitution. The uh, old one, that is, from 1990.

I guess I should go on the record here and say that I’m actually rather optimistic on the subject. Of the new one, I mean. The 2005 one.

Firstly because it’s nice and contradictory, leaving lots of room for flexible interpretation, which I’ve always heard is one of the nicer bits about ours. So it’s a forward-thinking detail. Then there’s the gushing over it from the media, as Chrenkoff points out. The uh, Afghani one, that is. Then there’s the fact that not every secular person in Iraq was a close personal pal of Saddam Hussein’s. All those regular people who managed to live nicely secular lives and still keep their heads down aren’t going to let themselves get railroaded by the Islamic equivalent of Jerry Falwell, for heaven’s sake. I mean, a little blind faith in the common man is always appropriate (especially when it really has nothing to do with us anymore (unless we’re Empire-building which I thought people didn’t want?)). Then there’s this:

Opinion Journal - Iraq’s Federalist Papers: The constitution empowers legislators, not clerics.

Iraq’s first freely elected government continues to vindicate the belief that the Mideast can be transformed, starting with Saddam Hussein’s former tyranny. Its draft constitution, which appears headed for parliamentary approval tonight, reflects a remarkable spirit of compromise–and even enlightenment–among the country’s political, ethnic and religious factions.

The word “compromise” is key here. If we were drafting the document, there are many things we might have done differently. But the point of democracy is that countries have to find their own way on difficult issues. Americans also shouldn’t be too quick to conclude that anything that sounds odd or unfamiliar to liberal ears is evidence of failure. While this constitution does indeed contain general appeals to religion, it is fundamentally a document that empowers legislators, not clerics.

Take the role of Islam, which is designated as “a” (not “the”) “basic source of legislation.” Some critics see this as evidence of incipient theocracy. But in what Western democracy are laws not generally in accord with the Judeo-Christian moral heritage? In any case, interpretation of that clause will be up to elected representatives.

That’s one of my favourite protestations of the left. Haven’t they been telling us for four years what a whiz-bang religion Islam is? And suddenly any government under the slightest level of influence by it is suddenly doomed to be unfair, violent, oppressive, et cetera and so on. It’s hilarious!

This is one point that keeps coming up that I’ll never get:

At the same time, Sunnis needn’t fear that Iraq’s mineral wealth will be hoarded in Kurdish and Shiite dominated provinces, where much of it lies. The revenue sharing proposal of Deputy Prime Minister Ahmed Chalabi–which we reported on last week, and which would distribute wealth equally among the provinces according to population–has been largely accepted.

There’s a lot of oil wealth in Texas and Alaska. New Hampshireans don’t get all in a twist over getting “left out”, do they? No, if they want some of the dough, they move to Texas or Alaska*. So what, are the Sunni’s (who don’t, actually, have the word Sunni stamped on their forehead) chained to the ground in the Sunni triangle?

Curtsy: Arthur’s Seat.

* And still get left out of the Oil Dividends, unless they’re native Alaskans.