Two types of Constitution writers make me nervous
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dayuhan
Slightly OT, but this article might interest you:
http://tinyurl.com/bumtjp8
Foreign Affairs on "Writing Constitutions in the Wake of the Arab Spring"
1. Those of the group currently holding power acting to preserve that power; and
2. Western "do-gooders" who come in convinced that specific degrees of certain values, or that specific forms of government are the only right answer and work to force them into the document or to criticize a document that lacks them. (whatever happened to broad principles and self-determination?)
You see both at work in this quote from the article:
"That intention became clearer in mid-November, when the Supreme Council released a set of draft constitutional provisions that would give the military immunity from civilian supervision and empower the armed forces power to approve legislation proposed by the parliament. This went well beyond the "Turkish model" -- parliamentary sovereignty limited by military oversight -- that has been widely suggested, and precipitated a crisis in the military's relations with the civilian population and a new round of protests.
The constitution that emerges over the next year will likely lay out a parliamentary system. It will be influenced by Islamic ideas but will be characterized by the need for the dominant parties to form coalitions if they are to govern. It is unlikely, and probably undesirable, that a single party will be able to secure a simple majority in the parliament. This should lead to some compromise and moderation among the most extreme parties. But while certain human rights will be codified in the new code, the parties might be forced to focus on the political status of the civilian government and religious rights. The future status of Egyptian women is thus cause for concern. The Supreme Council already set aside some Constituent Assembly seats for women, but gender is not listed in the declaration's provisions banning discrimination. Women were also excluded from the preparations for the recent elections."
As I recall women's rights are not addressed in our base constitution either. Our nation had to evolve to a point where such an addition made sense. I'll need to think on this a bit, but I suspect I can come up with 5-10 guidelines for crafting a constitution for best COIN effect over time.
The bottom line must be one of shared trust. That when one has lost all faith in politicians, one can still trust in their government. That government is a system, and a good constitution lays out a good system. People come and go, some good, some bad, but a good or bad system is a gift that keeps on giving, producing good or bad fruit depending on it's nature.
There is much "bad fruit" laying about in Afghanistan. It is time we focused on the tree it drops from and better understand the roots that nurtured and gave rise to the same. We have a heavy hand in that, and our well-intended, insurgency-ignorant, advisors to that process were manipulated artfully by the Northern Alliance to serve their selfish interests.
We show no signs of learning this lesson, so undoubtedly will repeat our mistakes in places like Egypt, Libya, etc, etc, etc.