Update [2005-7-31 14:0:18 by susanhu]: “Iraqi officials consider rationing fuel,” Al Jazeera, July 31, 2005.
You’ve no doubt seen the spate of articles and Sunday talk show discussions on the delayed completion of the Iraqi constitution, including today’s WaPo “Iraqis Debate Constitution Delay.” Two superb analysts — Juan Cole and Col. Patrick Lang (Ret.) — look at the issues involved:
……………………………………………………….
Pat Lang at his new blog, Sic Semper Tyrannis: Islamic history reflects the patterns of traditional Islamic social structures and even religious discourse. In all these fields the emphasis is on unity, cohesiveness and consensus. Almost nowhere is there any real value placed on the kind of devolution of power or diversity of opinion, or authority implicit in the Western idea of federalism. […]
The only federal structures that I know of in Arab history are modern and the products of the interaction of British educators and colonial officials with the people of the arabian Peninsula. …
Federalism in Iraq? It is a way station on the path to dissolution on the model of Yugoslavia, and that is the way most Arabs see it.
MORE BELOW:
Meanwhile, Juan Cole summarizes the latest bombings, killing, and kidnappings: “Three employees of Baghdad International Airport, who had been kidnapped, turned up blindfolded and dead.” … “An Iraqi health ministry official, Eman Naji, was kidnapped by gunmen who stormed her home in the capital’s upscale district of Mansour.”
And, the U.S. has established “the first long-term military base” near the Syrian border to prevent foreign terrorists from entering Iraq, reports today’s LA Times. The LAT also mentions that “U.S. military officials have asked the Iraqi government to issue emergency laws that could include a curfew and a travel ban” in Fallujah.
Pat Lang also has a revealing description of Prince Turki, Saudi Arabia’s new ambassador to Washington, D.C., and on Prince Turki’s pronouncements about Islam.
it was inevitable that the putative “constitutional process” within Iraq would wind up going nowhere, I’m not surprised by these revelations now of a serious, perhaps insurmountable deadlock. Nor am I surprised that the slow and steady institutionalization of measures that reverse protections of human rights for women is being largely ignored not only by the Bush regime, but also by the MSM megaphones that carry the water for them.
Even though I’ve long operated under the working hypothesis that “security” and “liberty” and “democracy” were never goals of the Cheney gang in Iraq; that in fact civil war and a widening, perpetual conflict were essential to their plan to keep a large military force in the region for the forseeable future; even though I’ve assumed all of this to be true, the clear signs of breakdown (along ethnic, tribal lines) of this process is a big deal, quite possibly representing a sort of “point of no return”, the point at which even the Bush regime will finally abandon their absurd contentions that progress is being made and that their plans are leading to success. (Of course, they’ll just transfer the blame to the Iraqis, but that’s another story).
I am somewhat dismayed, however, to see that so few people have commented here. I know though that it’s Sunday and many may have actual fun things to do so I will remain hopeful that more people will find their way here as the day progresses and perhaps recognze the significance of these announcements.
There may be a number of people, like me, who are reading this but who have nothing to say. It all seems to be going in exactly the direction it was always going to go given the goals and limitations of the people who were leading us there.
I agree with your assessment completely, and I’m glad you chose to read this diary.
I have to agree with Kansas. What is there to add? These are the concerns that I had before the invasion, and sadly, I now feel like a psychic.
to question an established Mideast scholar like Pat Lang. I mean, I’ve read like two books on the subject, and he must have read fifty times that.
Also, I’m sure he’s right that a federal “solution” in Iraq would really just be a brief step on a path ending either in civil war or the dissolution of the country, or both.
Still… what little I know about Islam and its history makes me think that an autochthonous federalism wouldn’t be impossible. I mean, look at the organizational structure of the religion. Where’s the central commanding authority in Islam? Doesn’t exist. Rather, a multiplicity of imams decide theological matters individually and in concert. The religion itself is also fairly well factionalized — not just between Sunni and Shia, but also within Sunni Islam itself. (My sense is, though I could be wrong, that Shia is relatively more cohesive.)
I wish I knew more about the internal structures of the Ottoman Empire, because I suspect political authority was actually fairly decentralized. Considering the size of the empire, its longevity, and the lack of rapid means of communication for most of its history, local satraps must have had a great deal of authority to interpret the emperor’s wishes — and I’m certain they did that in accordance with very local political interests and demands.
If I’m right, that strikes me as a pretty decent foundation for home rule, that could then be expanded into some kind of federalist system.
The point here isn’t that the Bushies will be able to tap into this in Iraq — the neocons are too fucking tone deaf to even understand half of what I’m talking about — but rather to take a little bit more optimistic view of the possibilities for democracy and decentralized government in the Muslim world.
Federalist system. It hardly functions in our own “perfect” country. Why would anyone want to inflict it on another people?
I dunno. Guess I buy into the assumption that it’s easier for citizens to control local government rather than the national government, and it’s easier for a collective of local governments to check the power of the national government.
Federalism isn’t perfect, but we have gone 200 plus years without tyranny (got my fingers crossed on that one!) and along the way we’ve seen tremendous advances in democracy, equality, and workers’ rights.
Nice in theory but it just seems to remove people further away from power while letting their ruling “aristocracy” get on with important things like running a country in practice.
So what do you suggest?
I’ve always liked the idea of a non-federal party based parliamentary system. It seems the most responsive system to modern change, and it also ensures one man one vote, which is innately fair.
The LAT also mentions that “U.S. military officials have asked the Iraqi government to issue emergency laws that could include a curfew and a travel ban” in Fallujah.
Only 9 months after the Fallujah offensive, things get serious enough that the US wants a curfew there again.