USIP: Constitutional Reform in Iraq: Improving Prospects, Political Decisions Needed

[marct]

Hi Rob and Rex,

Rex, a worthwhile bit of reading that should simulate some discussion,

I'll second that.

We tend to focus on an organizational political body as the reflection of reconciliation, integration, tolerance, stability and peace, but does that mean it is the only means to accomplish the ends?

I would have to say "no" while, at the same time, noting that this is a fairly recent historical development.

If a government adopts a policy or enacts legislation, but for whatever reason the populace will not or cannot accept it - does that still make it valid? Will a domestic policy be sustainable if it does not have domestic support? Will a politician push or support domestic legislation if the constituents he or she represents threatens to abandon them?

Some really good, and really tricky questions, Rob. I hope TT and John will jump in on them, since I'm not a political scientist . Having said that, however, let me toss out a few observations from mine own, biased, position.

"Validity" is, to my mind, a social construct in politics. I believe that it is quite rare, possibly limited to the Anglo complex and, I think, Salic law, that a "law" that is invalid should be overthrown. I'm thinking about Magna Carta style right of revolt, ad yet your first question seems to be predicated on the assumption that something like that exists. I think that most societies have a very different, starker, view of governments and laws. Durkheim once wrote (Elementary forms of Religious Life) that religion is society worshiping itself (i.e. that religion is a sacralization of the social system). I that is true in some cases, and I think it is, then "legislation" has the power of "divine writ" and is not to be questioned. That certainly seems to fit into the older Temple States and a number of other societies.

But if that is the case, and the populace cannot accept a piece of legislation, then there becomes a moral imperative to destroy the government that enacted it, since they are "polluting" the "sacred". It does strike me that the key word is cannot as opposed to just saying that there is no popular support for it.

On your second question, I would have to say that it is possible to keep a piece of legislation if there is no support for it as long as it does not cross the line of becoming a "danger". Some legislative artifacts, i.e. remnants of moral codes from older historical periods that no longer have general moral support, certainly can be kept around. Sometimes, people have just forgotten about them and sometimes they have been exapted into serving a new purpose. Newer legislation would be harder, to my mind, but it could still be done if it was sold under an exapted purpose - the form of government in Afghanistan is a good example of that.

On your final question, I think the answer depends on the political system and the motivations of the individual politician.

This is one of the problems I have with what I understand about the GAO report on political benchmarks, be they good or bad, do they reflect the willingness of the people to reconcile, share, integrate, etc. ....
I think a more accurate barometer for Iraq's path to security and eventually stability at this juncture might be found at the grass roots level because if the people and their societal leadership have decided they can or cannot live with it, it will come to be reflected by the risks the politicians are willing to take. If we want an accurate assessment of potential and progress, we probably need to stop mirror imaging the type of consensus we wish we had in our own domestic politics, and instead see the challenges as they are.

I would certainly have to agree with this. A lot of the difficulties I have seen in both Afghanistan and Iraq stem from what I have to characterize as an amazingly naive assumption about what politics "should be". Some of my more left wing colleagues would describe it as the "imposition of American Hegemony" but, personally, I am more inclined to assume ignorance than malice . I'm calling it "ignorance" because the actions of imposing republican forms of government in both states seems to go against the expressed wishes of many of the populace. This is one of the paradoxes inherent in the promulgation of "democracy" by the west. Do "we" accept the democratically made decisions of other nations when they go against our own national interests?

Marc