ELEANA GORDON: Comparisons between Iraqi and Afghan Constitutions

A number of bloggers and editorial writers have noted the hypocrisy of so many (like the New York Times) who are now criticizing the Iraqi Constitution, but celebrated the Afghan Constitution when it was drafted even though it gives an even greater role to Islam and includes fewer protections for the rights of women and non-Muslims.

Alenda Lux, for example, has a detailed and convincing analysis comparing the two constitutions,  which he ends by criticizing those of us who remain concerned about the loopholes in the Iraqi constitution:

"The media, and much of the commentariat, will continue to bray about how we're establishing Shari'a law in Iraq and that women will "lose gains they made during Hussein's rule." Andrew Sullivan is playing Chicken Little, fearing that "there's still a reasonable chance of a pretty depressingly illiberal constitution." Hopefully that's just his hangover from the past weekend still making his head pound."

A few  comments:

The fact that many who are now criticizing the Iraqi constitution didn't push back as hard on the Aghan one doesn't mean the loopholes for Islamists to hijack Iraq's emerging constitution don't exist. So what if the Aghan constitution is just as bad, or worse? Two wrongs do not make a right.

Many others, such as Nina Shea from Freedom House, were just as vocal about the problems with the Aghan constitution as they are now about the Iraqi Constitution - and it is really worth paying attention to their analyses (see today's op-ed in National Review Online)

1. Aghanistan's constitution was no model of liberal democracy, but given where Afghanistan was coming from (gender-apartheid under the Taliban and total theocracy), it was a huge step forward. In contrast, if Iranian-style Islamic law is established in Iraq, it will be a step backward for women and non-Muslims, who have benefited from civil law since 1959. Not to mention that it will not exactly serve our national security interests.