Within hours of the assassination of a drafter of the Iraqi Constitution, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani announced that a version of the constitution would be made public within the next month. But a working draft of the Iraqi Constitution (PDF) has already been released by Iraqi media. Parts of the document appear as though it were written by the mob awaiting their welfare checks.

"The basis of the national economy is social justice," Article 18 reads. "The state shall bear the responsibility for growth, developing production and services, building a solid infrastructure for the economy of the country, and providing services." "Iraqi citizens have the right to enjoy security and free health care," the document proclaims. "The state shall guarantee the realization of the social guarantee necessary for citizens in case of old age, disease, inability to work, or if they are homeless, orphans, widowed, or unemployed. It shall provide them social insurance services and health care and protect them from the talons of ignorance, fear, and want, providing them with housing, and special programs to train them and care for them." "Work is a right for every Iraqi citizen and a duty for him," the draft constitution explains. "The state and the governments of the regions shall strive to provide work opportunities for every able-bodied citizen."

Whereas the American Constitution and Bill of Rights outline limitations on state power, the would-be Iraqi Constitution outlines the vast powers of the state. In contrast to the First Amendment's prohibitions on congressional interference in speech, Iraq's Article 6 states: "There is no censorship on newspapers, printing, publishing, advertising, or media except by law." (Does not the final clause render its antecedent meaningless?) In contrast to the Second Amendment's acknowledgement of the right to keep and bear arms, Article 22 declares: "Citizens may not own, bear, buy, or sell weapons, except by a permit issued in accordance with law."

Elsewhere, the draft constitution's vagueness provides cover for future governmental mischief. "The Iraqi people are one people, unified by belief and the unity of the homeland and culture," Article 5 notes. "Anything that exposes this unity to danger is forbidden." Article 13 states: "Public and private freedoms are protected provided they do not conflict with moral values and public decency."

The Iraqi Constitution should not be a carbon copy of the American Constitution. Iraqis have a different history, a different religion, a different language, and a different culture than Americans. It makes sense that they also have a different constitution. But a recognition that difference doesn't mean disaster shouldn't blind us to differences that do mean disaster.

Isn’t something as serious and valuable as Democracy sought after and developed and not installed?

How do we expect that a people who have been herded and lorded over by a series of dictators all of a sudden stand up to comprehend and embrace the concepts of Democracy just because we say so?

They aren't "Comprehending" democracy?

I don't imagine that having socialized healtcare is quite the departure from democracy you imagine it is.

Dan's quote pretty much shows that the constitution says Iraqis have a right to protection and healthcare from their government. I am not alarmed.

There may be traditions, principles, phrases, etc. from sharia (Islamic law) or other local practices that they're trying to have reflected legally, like a kind of mandated social concern. Who knows?

You'll know they are truly free (and our influence waning) when they start banning Israeli origin goods.

Is it normal for nations to invoke other nations in their constitution? Along the lines of Homer Fong's observation, the leaked Iraqi Constitution singles out Israel on a couple of occassions: "Any individual with another nationality (except for Israel) may obtain Iraqi nationality" and conversely "An Iraqi may have more than one nationality as long as the nationality is not Israeli." While I don't envision too many Israelis clamoring for Iraqi citizenship, it's worth noting that one of the oldest Jewish communities in the world found refuge in Iraq 700 years before Christ and until recently more than 100,000 Jews lived in Iraq. Now more Jews live in my neighborhood than live in Iraq. The Islamic preoccupation with Jews is evidenced by these anti-Jewish provisions in the proposed Constitution, especially when you consider how few Jews (about 100) actually live in Iraq.

That constitution looks like something my campus socialists could draw up. I wonder if = after reading this document - more leftists will start supporting this war.

Moving on, according to Iraq's constitutional draft, "The Iraqi people are one people, unified by belief and the unity of the homeland and culture. Anything that exposes this unity to danger is forbidden."

First, you can pontificate all you want about the "unity" of the Iraqi people, but it does not change the fact that 100 years ago the nation of Iraq did not exist. Iraq the nation is nothing more than some lines drawn on a map by a British diplomat following World War II.

Second, since anything that "exposes" national unity to "danger" is forbidden, that pretty much rules out secession altogether. That's a rather Hobbesian/Lincolnian view of government.

Yeah, we're fighting for "freedom" alright.

This is an interesting post, and it reminds me of some of the strangest images I saw during the initial "liberation" of Iraq. For instance, as I watched on TV the mobs toppling the Saddam statues, I noticed not one, but several people in the crowd waving the USSR flag. What the heck is that? Does anyone remember this? This may have been a figment of my imagination, but I don't think so. And I still do not understand why, of all flags to wave, they chose the USSR. I'd like to hear others' opinions on this.

Our own Constitution wasn't exactly written by The People. The brightest federalists holed themselves up in PA and banged it out. Thomas Jefferson was coincidentally across the pond in France at the time.

The Bill of Rights was tacked on later at the behest of the antifederalists, and with that it was ratified.

The People rebelled shortly after over Whiskey.

It was over more than just whiskey, but whiskey is darn good enough to rebel over.

Great points Homer. I know that Iraq, and most mid-east countries, had very highly developed and active communist parties throughout the last 60-70 years. They generally were effective at attempting to organize resistance to the various dictatorial or monarchical leaders they had. So I wouldn't be surprised if the Soviet flag-wavers were just socialist remnants of these old movements.

As for their constitution, most of those provisions seem quite "progressive" to me, as in quite modern/nationalist/statist/socialist principles. So they seem to be enacting exactly the sort of government that the neocons and their allies on the left (I know that is a redundancy) adore. Ben T indicates as much. Our constitution has been pretty effectively read to demand about the same duties from our own government over the last century.

o.k. guys (Ben's) let's hear it! I mentioned neocons critically again. Yawn.

I've got an idea for lines in the Iraqi constitution:

"The legislature shall make no law which does not acheive a majority of affirmative votes from a quarum of legislators."

Or how about:

"Citizens of Iraq are to be absolutely secure in the persons, papers and effects unless instructed to submit to a search."

"All citizens shall have the right to act as their conscience leads them, unless we catch them doing it."

And finally: "Nintendo for everybody!!!*"
...
"*- Everyone who is not excluded by law."

o.k. guys (Ben's) let's hear it! I mentioned neocons critically again. Yawn.

Brian, your wit is sharp and penetrating.

Want to "hear it"? I'm not a socialist. I believe in a limited, small-L libertarian government. That's all there is to hear. Your comment is simply moronic -- especially considering the endless stream of links between Old Right goons and Leftist schmucks.

The part about denying Iraqi citizenship to an Israeli is offensive to a liberal westerner, but if a clause were to express recognition of the Jewish State that would set the new Iraq apart from Syria, Iran, and many Palestinian factions.

The Iraqi constitution is socialist in nature and as such Iraq is not a democracy? Is that the point you are trying to make? It seems to be, but I could be wrong.

IF SO, then it isn't even worth addressing, it's ridiculous.

The Israeli part is a valid criticism but we also had some things we had to smooth out in our own democratic experiment. Like slavery, for one.

NOTE: When I said "You" I didn't mean Jeremiah, I meant the collective "You" referring to the Anti-War Old Rightists among us.

Ben-T,

Pardon my cynicism here, but the Iraqi people have so far not developed a workable Democratic government or anything resembling a stable social infrastructure. So, although a set of Constitutional rules does need to be established, they’re not worth the paper they’re written on until they have a viable government. At this point, anything written into it would be irrelevant.

I have to agree with you ASDF. I had been hoping for a democratic reform of Iraq. But I've become more skeptical of late. It seems in order to get results like us, you need a culture that can respect Locke. You need respect for the rule of law.

Iraqis have some of that. They have enough respect for law that they see shame in even a tyrant like Hussein dragging you off to prison. Problem is, is that the shamed status results in an excuse for lawlessness. While that person is being tortured in Saddam's shop of horrors, walk in and help yourself to their TV or furniture.

Ben-T,

Pardon my cynicism here, but the Iraqi people have so far not developed a workable Democratic government or anything resembling a stable social infrastructure. So, although a set of Constitutional rules does need to be established, they’re not worth the paper they’re written on until they have a viable government. At this point, anything written into it would be irrelevant.
Posted by asdf at July 20, 2005 09:47 AM

It's been two years of wartime, the progress has been shockingly fast. It took our founding fathers eleven years of peace merely to agree upon a constitution.

But why exactly is the Iraqi government not viable? I would assume it is the defense issue?

According to Prime Minister Ibrahim Al-Jaafari, the ISF is now prepared to take full responsibilty of several Iraqi cities. The ISF becoms stronger by the day.

Progress? Yes. But there is a Constitution only because we say there is a Constitution. The majority of Iraqis wouldn’t know a Constitution if they tripped over it and could probably care less.

Look, I wish the best for all people. And I suppose it is a good thing that as a byproduct of our invasion we have installed a rudimentary Democratic system there that has resulted in the creation of a Constitution.

But, these things are only a reality because we came in and changed things at the insistence of our military. And we will need to continue to be involved militarily until the Iraqi people can stand on their own. All indications are that this could be much later than sooner as most of these people are primitives who are more concerned with day to day survival than what type of government they’re living under.

There is a very good chance that as a society, Iraqis will never be stable enough (whether we’re there or not) to adopt a truly democratic form of government.

Also, there is certainly a significant difference between our founding fathers and current day Iraqis. There can be no comparison between the two groups.

There is a public Constitution that any Iraqi can go and read if he so wishes. The new draft of the Iraqi Bill of Rights has bene published in all major Iraqi media outlets. Your assertion is just unsupported.

Iraqi Security Forces get better by the day:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/13/africa/web.iraq.php

Bush is looking to leave Iraq sooner than some may think:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0711/dailyUpdate.html

Most of my fellow countrymen can't "go and read" the proposed Constitution "if he so wishes" because most of my fellow countrymen can't even read. Only about 40 percent of adults in Iraq can read.

Sorry, what do you want? You have to be able to read in order to read the constitution, sorry. Iraqi illeteracy rates is not evidence that the Iraqi government, which has existed for less than two years, isn't a valid government.

Please have the decency to post under your regular name, assuming you are a regular poster.