Over at Slate, Fred Kaplan examines the Iraqi constitution and finds it not only lacking, but incoherent.
This sort of thing goes on. As Kaplan concludes, "[a]s one indication of the situation's bleakness, it's a toss-up which course would be worse—that the constitution be turned down or that it be rammed through. Either way, it is not at all clear—with or without this constitution—what kind of government, what kind of nation, this war and this process have wrought."
UPDATE (3:20 PM) :
mollpeartree links to the full text (PDF format). It's fortunately not as bad as Kaplan feared, but Article 2 is still worrisome. How are the "undisputed rules of Islam" defined? What exactly is the "Islamic identity of Iraq"?
Article 2 guarantees the Islamic identity of the Iraqi people as well as all other religious rights. Article 39 preserves the right to observe religious rituals—but it also notes that the issue "will be organized by statute." So, is freedom of religion—any religion—a constitutionally protected civil right or is it a matter to be deferred to legislatures? Things look more ominous still, in light of Articles 13 and 118, which forbid regional or provincial statutes from contravening the laws or constitution of the national government. And what's the national constitution's take again? "Islam is the official religion of state and a fundamental source for legislation."
This sort of thing goes on. As Kaplan concludes, "[a]s one indication of the situation's bleakness, it's a toss-up which course would be worse—that the constitution be turned down or that it be rammed through. Either way, it is not at all clear—with or without this constitution—what kind of government, what kind of nation, this war and this process have wrought."
UPDATE (3:20 PM) :