On Constitutions

Hand-wringing over perceived inadequacies in the draft Iraqi constitution do not concern me as much as your average NYTimes columnist.

First, we should smack our heads with wonder every time we read a headline about factional conflict in the Iraqi Parliament. These folks are discussing, arguing, and when they get really grouchy, threatening to boycott or walk out. Not shooting, not bombing. Elected leaders behaving no more childishly than US Congresspeople.

Secondly, this is a draft. There will be many opportunities to amend and repair flaws. The US Constitution did not outlaw chattel slavery and we did okay.

Thirdly, as the WSJ notes, Britain has done pretty well with no written Constitution, the USSR had a great one that was never enforceable, let's keep an eye on reality, not clauses.

Lastly, Michael Barone observes another thing about representative democracy:

They make the point that Iraqis are not necessarily going to make the same constitutional and policy choices that Americans would. This is of course true of other democracies. Britain has an established Church of England, and the prime minister effectively (and the Queen formally) chooses the Archbishop of Canterbury. Canada provides public funding for Catholic and other religious schools. France bans girls from wearing headscarves in schools. Germany prohibits the publication of Nazi materials. We don't do any of these things, and most Americans wouldn't want to. But who would argue that Britain, Canada, France, and Germany are not acceptable representative democracies with acceptable levels of human rights? They just have different histories and different traditions, and have made different choices.

Some have argued that Iraq is a poor testing ground for democracy in the Middle East because it has multiple sects and ethnic groups—the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds. But I think the multi-sect, multi-ethnic character of Iraq is actually helpful in forging an acceptable democracy. It forces constitution-makers to confront squarely the age-old dilemma of representative government, how to reconcile majority rule with minority rights. In a mono-ethnic, mono-sect state, or one in which one group is the overwhelming majority (Shiite Iran, Sunni Egypt), that issue doesn't necessarily present itself, and you risk getting the tyranny of the majority that our own Founding Fathers strove to prevent.

Long as they're arguin'...

Freedom on the March Posted by jk at August 26, 2005 12:57 PM