constitutions

In a post that strongly (and convincingly) rejects the idea of breaking Iraq into three countries, Juan Cole says:

The alternative is to build into the new Iraq guarantees against a tyranny of the Shiite majority. Have a bicameral legislature that over-represents the Sunnis slightly. Have a bill of rights. Have elected provincial governors and legislatures with their own local purview that the central state cannot over-rule, and make them key to any amendments to the constitution. In other words, learn something from a success story: the US constitution.

This raises two related, but slightly different, questions for me:
1. is it more important to our success in Iraq that we have the right constitution, or the right people in charge?
2. to the extent that the U.S. should impose its will or use its influence on what Iraq's government will look like, should it focus on the content of the constitution, or the people in charge?

Comments

[meaux]

Both are obviously important, but I suggest that the constitution is more important, indeed is sufficient reason to ensure that the US sticks around. And there's a reason that many lefties can agree on:

Gay Marriage.

While somewhat more controversial in recent years, the tradition of a strong judiciary that constrains the will of the legislature (tyranny of the majority) and the executive (tyranny of the military) is the best way to preserve freedoms, especially the unpopular ones like speech and association.

But such a tradition depends on strong leaders who are restrained (on the part of the executive) and resiliant (on the part of the judiciary). It also needs time, which means security from its potentially meddling neighbors.

So to the extent that the US can exert influence, it should be in the defense of liberty, at the (necessary) expense of democracy. The elites in Iraq will want to pick a strong leader, and have lots of power in a legislature. Indeed, we might want those things too, if only to be able to declare "victory!" in time for next November.

This way lies disaster. An excess of legislature will lead to either tyranny of a majority or serious fracture. An excess of executive is the path to dictatorship - in fact, parliamentarian democracies in the developing world have a much stronger track record than presidential democracies (don't have a cite handy, comes from my Comp. Politics class from back in the day).

Our better angels should make us take a longer road, to encourage the strength of a judiciary based on a freedom-preserving constitution. It's not sunshine and roses after that, but its a start.

[Katherine]

I tend to think that the people in charge matter at least as much, but that the constitutional structure is the more appropriate and more effective place for the U.S. to use its influence. This might just be a knee jerk reaction of a law-talking girl, though.

[carpeicthus]

The people matter a great deal. The Constitution is very important for making the system self-perpetuating, but the people in charge and the structures around it are what is going to make the constitution powerful in the first place. Many oppressive countries have had excellent constitutions that were routinely ignored.

[MattK/D1]

To follow up on what Carpeicthus just said, according to this site, Article 35 of the Chinese Constitution states:

"Citizens of the PRC enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration."

Enjoy it when they can get it, that is.

[KenB]

I've read more than one history of the founding fathers that has suggested that the success of our nation depended entirely on their choosing to follow the rules that they had set up. The U.S. constitution was just a few individual decisions away from ending up as relevant as China's.

That said, it would be much more controversial for us to push for particular individuals than for particular elements of the Iraqi constitution. For one thing, anyone we're seen to be hand-selecting will be suspect (remember our all-too-obvious anointment of former Unocal advisor Karzai in Afghanistan); and so far our leaders haven't given anyone much reason to be confident in their ability to find and promote the right Iraqis for leadership posts (see Chalabi, Ahmed).

I fervently hope that somehow the Iraqis will find their Washington, Adams, & Jefferson; but I don't think we'll be able to do that for them.

[Matthew Stinson]

Kant argued that a good constitution would change political culture over time to make people democratic and law-abiding, even if they started out as devils (which the people of Iraq are not). Me being a Burkean trustee guy, I look for strong leaders, especially in the executive and the judiciary. I agree with Cole about a bicameral Iraq, but we'd have to make sure that the Upper House wasn't mere window-dressing -- it would have to be more like the US Senate if it is to have a moderating effect at all