|
|
Home | Notes
Contributors
Archives | Search
Links | About
..........
over 2 million served
..........
Julia Gorin
..........
..........
Conservatives Are From Mars, Liberals Are From San Francisco
by Burt Prelutsky
.........
America Alone
by Mark Steyn
..........
..........
..........
|
|
 Can
Democracy in Iraq Survive Our Media?
Liberals cry failure...
[by Roger Aronoff] 9/21/05
As Iraq moves
toward a referendum on its draft constitution on October 15,
the debate rages on, with some elements of our liberal media
doing their best to undermine the positive achievements of
the Iraqi people.
A New
York Newsday editorial claimed the conflict is worsening and the
process is increasing the chances for civil war. Time magazine
said that “While the failure of the constitution in October
would be an embarrassment for the United States' efforts here,
it would be a blessing for Iraqis. The Sunnis could point to
a political victory and then prepare for elections that would
see them increase their representation in a future parliament.” Senator
Joe Biden called it “a formula for civil war.”
Frank Rich of the New
York Times seems to compete
with Maureen Dowd, also of the Times, to see who can
be the most clever and
contemptuous of President Bush and the entire handling of the
war. Rich said in a column titled, “Someone Tell the President
the War is Over,” that “The endgame for the American
involvement in Iraq will be of a piece with the rest of this
sorry history.” Rich has a lot of his “credibility” invested
in the U.S. being finally forced to cut and run, with Iraq submerging
into civil war. If America succeeds, he has egg on his face.
After much negotiating, the Iraqi draft constitution
was finalized without the Sunnis’ consent. They largely
chose to not participate in the January 30 elections, and as
a result had
less of a voice when it came to drafting the constitution. They
also bear the burden of having had one of their own, Saddam Hussein,
brutally run the country for nearly three decades before being
toppled in 2003. And on top of that, there is little oil where
they live, resulting in their being dependent on the new government
for their financial well-being. Iraq sits on the third largest
oil reserves of any country in the world.
The main area of conflict in the negotiations
over the constitution has been federalism. Wrapped up in that
word are such complex
issues as the sharing of the nation’s oil wealth and regional
autonomy within a national government.
But the debate in this country is more about
the role of Islam. If, as the constitution calls for, Islam
is the official state
religion and is “a main source for legislation,” how
troubling is that? Does it mean that this is going to be a pro-Iranian
government? Are women’s rights going to be a casualty of
this process? Many are pointing to the distinction that Islam
is to be “a” main source of law, not “the” main
source.
A fascinating
debate has taken place on the right in columns by
Charles
Krauthammer, who writes for the Washington Post and other
papers, and Andrew
McCarthy, the former federal prosecutor who
writes for National Review online. In a column,
McCarthy acknowledges his great respect for Krauthammer but is
much more concerned about the role Islam will play in the new
government, based on the current draft of the constitution.
Once the draft constitution was in place, Krauthammer
viewed it as a document we can live with, and not as bad as
it could
have been. Other provisions would tend to mitigate the concerns
of having created a Muslim theocracy, rather than a nascent democracy.
The constitution states that “No law can be passed that
contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam” but also says
that: “No law can be passed that contradicts the principles
of democracy” and “No law can be passed that contradicts
the rights and basic freedoms outlined in this constitution.” These
ambiguities and apparent contradictions will enable the new government
will move toward a democratic system closer to a Western-style
model.
The Wall
Street Journal offered up what it sarcastically
called a “radical thought: How about letting Iraqis debate and
vote on their new national charter before we Americans summarily
denounce it as a failure.” The Journal argued that with
its provisions to protect human rights, including free speech
and the right to worship, it is “a great achievement.” They
call this a moment “of remarkable promise. A constitution,
written in a spirit of compromise rare in the Middle East, has
now been adopted by a freely elected, multiethnic, multidenominational
Muslim government. This government now intends to put the constitution
to a vote and—what’s more amazing—abide by
the result.”
A constitution is only as good as the intentions and actions
of the leaders, legislators and judiciary that implement and
interpret it. There is a democratic revolution occurring in the
Middle East that was unimaginable just a few years ago. What
it will look like 10 and 20 years from now will depend on how
committed the people are to self-rule and to peaceful transfers
of power. The U.S. continues to have a major role to play. But
our ability to stay the course means that our leaders have to
remain committed to democratic government and they have to be
able to ignore the rantings and ravings of people like Frank
Rich and Maureen Dowd. tRO
copyright
2005 Accuracy in Media
§
|
|
|
