Less than a month from now, one of the most important elections in American history will occur-and you don’t have a vote. On Oct. 15, Iraqi voters will go to the polls to decide the fate of the proposed Iraqi constitution. While America’s one-track mind has been focused on Hurricane Katrina, Iraq has continued to tear itself apart. More than 300 people have been killed in the past week, while shortages in the capitol have forced Baghdad citizens to drive only every other day.
In a few short weeks they will be voting on a constitution that few of them, and virtually no one in America, know anything about. Some of this ignorance is justified. The Iraqi constitutional committee is in such disarray that, despite grandstanding political announcements, it was not until a few days ago that the final draft was submitted to the United Nations for printing. Previously, several different drafts were being circulated as the official version. This situation probably would have been remedied had the General Assembly actually voted on the draft, as is prescribed by law, rather than simply letting the constitutional committee submit it directly to the people.
Currently, the U.N. is frantically trying to print five million copies so that the Iraqi people, many of whom are without television or the Internet, can read what it is they will be voting on in less than a month.
The referendum is structured so that, if two-thirds of the voters in three provinces reject it, the constitution is dead and we go back to last January’s elections and start the whole constitutional process over.
This safeguard of three provinces was put in place by the Kurds in order to check the Shiites’ political power. The irony: The Kurds cut a deal with the Shiites, so the resistive Sunnis, who also happen to be a majority in three provinces, now have the power to kill the constitution to which they are bitterly opposed. Much of their anger comes from the constitution’s strong support for federalism and lack of definition on the sharing of oil revenue. The constitution allows different regions,similar to states, to merge together to create super-regions, so long as all participating groups agree. The Sunnis, who inhabit the poor desert lands of western Iraq, fear a giant Shiite state in the south that would have a monopoly on the country’s oil wealth.
The Sunni attempts to reject the constitution may lead them into an interesting paradox. They boycotted the last election and, as a result, had no input in the document’s drafting. The Sunnis could vote to reject the constitution, but participation at the polls would give legitimacy to a process they don’t support. Or, they could boycott once again and be stuck with a constitution they abhor. Early signs indicate that they will vote, though the confusion that will result may lead to too small of a turnout to be effective.
Some observers fear that, if the Sunnis do muster enough votes to reject the constitution, the interim government will argue that they need two-thirds of eligible voters-not total voters-to reject it. This impossible standard would surely alienate the Sunnis from the political process, probably for good.
As a document itself, the constitution falls far short of guaranteeing the Iraqi people a free and secure future. The inability of negotiators to reach a consensus resulted in too many general statements of intent and left basic rights open to interpretation. For example, no law is allowed that “contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam (Article 2).” That’s fine in principle, except that it’s not clear who will be interpreting those basic rules of Islam. Between Sunni and Shiite there are some major disagreements.
Freedom of speech is allowed, so long as you don’t say anything that would “violate public order or morality (Article 36).” This arbitrary line could be interpreted to mean it would be legal under the constitution to prosecute someone for speaking out against the government or for making nearly any other comment that in some way violates the powerholder’s definition of morality.
Personal status laws that regulate marriages, divorce and inheritance are to be practiced according to individual religious beliefs (Article 39)-a potential disaster for Iraqi women, some of whom have already been the victims of honor killings in the now religiously ruled southern regions.
Perhaps the most interesting right is that of an open trial as outlined in Article 7, which states, “Court sessions will be open unless the court decides to make them secret.”
A strange twist, which is hard to fully understand, comes at the end of the document, where the president, whose role is discussed throughout the entire constitution, is suddenly replaced with a presidential council of three people to be chosen by a two-thirds vote of the parliament. The council must unanimously sign off on all laws or else parliament needs a three-fifths vote to overturn them.
Some may ask why the details of the constitution should concern Americans. This is, after all, a governing system under which the Iraqi people, not us, will have to live. While there is truth in such statements, after the expenditure of so many lives, time and treasure, it is important for Americans to keep themselves informed on what’s happening in Iraq. The world will judge us by the quality of life the Iraqi people lead after we pull out. Let’s stay informed and know what’s happening before we leave so flighty proclaimming, “Mission accomplished.”
Stephen Webber is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences.
