Yesterday I heard the reporter from Baghdad on CNN International state that "Iraq looks like it will be an Islamic Republic in the model of Iran," and today's editorial in the New York Times accused the Bush Administration of settling for "an Iranian-style Shiite theocracy."
Wait a second! I have no issues with keeping the pressure on the administration to hold firm on religious freedom and women's rights in Iraq - but comparisons with Iran seem rather premature.
First of all, no one has seen the full draft yet, and we don't know what the exact language is with regards not only to Islam, but also freedom of religion, individual rights, as well as the process by which laws will be judged to be constitutional.
The language in a draft in circulation as of Sunday was actually encouraging. It stated that "no law shall be enacted that contradicts [Islam’s] established provisions, the principles of democracy, [or] the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this constitution." The same provision also protected "all the religious rights of all individuals in the freedom of belief and religious practice."
Second, there are many other key issues that will affect women and religious minorities. One, will the civil law of 1959 governing women's issue remain in place (good news), or will it be replaced by religious courts (bad news)? My guess is that the civil law will remain in place, with the option of using religious courts. Not a great solution, since many women will be forced by their families and customs to go to religious courts, but worth remembering that is also an option in place in ... Canada! Two, is Shari'a (Islamic law) explicitly mentioned (not so good), or more vaguely, does the constitution refer to the "values of Islam" (more wiggle room here)? Third, who will be in charge of determining whether laws are constitutional, and how will they be appointed?
But the real difference is that in Iran, ultimate power rests with "Supreme Leader" and a "Council of Guardians" that are not elected by the general population - as far as I know, no such model is being proposed in Iraq. The key positions of power will still be elected, with the possibility of amending the constitution.
As Jon Snow expained in his analysis of the recent Iranian elections, the idea of democracy in Iran is a complete fraud, since all candidates for the Presidency and the Parliament must be approved by the Council of Guardians, which has no qualms about rejecting candidates opposed to the Islamic Republic.
Iraq, instead, seems to be heading towards a parliamentary system with two elected chambers and decentralized powers that will check the central government. My guess is that its political system will look more like those of Indonesia and Malaysia - not quite secular, but democracies nonethless, where there is room for discussion about the role of Islam and the state.
Norm Geras has an excellent summation and analysis of the Iraqi constitutional wranglings as seen from up close.
Check it out - and pay special attention to the points re: regional autonomy, which will greatly limit its reach and overall effect as a potentially coercive document.
http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2005/08/brendan_oleary_.html
Posted by: Joe Katzman | August 24, 2005 at 01:53 AM