Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Iraq's government

  1. Jul 29, 2005 #1
    BAGHDAD (AP) — Framers of Iraq's constitution will designate Islam as the main source of legislation — a departure from the model set down by U.S. authorities during the occupation — according to a draft published Tuesday.

    The draft states no law will be approved that contradicts "the rules of Islam" — a requirement that could affect women's rights and set Iraq on a course far different from the one envisioned when U.S.-led forces invaded in 2003 to topple Saddam Hussein.

    "Islam is the official religion of the state and is the main source of legislation," reads the draft published in the government newspaper Al-Sabah. "No law that contradicts with its rules can be promulgated."

    The document also grants the Shiite religious leadership in Najaf a "guiding role" in recognition of its "high national and religious symbolism."

    Al-Sabah noted, however, that there were unspecified differences among the committee on the Najaf portion. Those would presumably include Kurds, Sunni Arabs and secular Shiites on the 71-member committee.

    During the U.S.-run occupation, which ended June 28, 2004, key Shiite and some Sunni politicians sought to have Islam designated the main source of legislation in the interim constitution, which took effect in March 2004.

    However, the U.S. governor of Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, blocked the move, agreeing only that Islam would be considered "a source" — but not the only one. At the time, prominent Shiite politicians agreed to forego a public battle with Bremer and pursue the issue during the drafting of the permanent constitution.

    Some women's groups fear strict interpretation of Islamic principles could erode their rights in such areas as divorce and inheritance. It could also move Iraq toward a more religiously based society than was envisioned by U.S. planners who hoped it would be a beacon of Western-style democracy in a region of one-party rule and theocratic regimes.

  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 29, 2005 #2
    Just gets better and better, doesn't it?
  4. Jul 29, 2005 #3
    what the hell did you expect.... The Baghdad Mcdonalds to open, and lots of closet presperterians to run out shouting ?.?.?.?

    DEMOCRACY comes from the people.... If they want to have an Islamic state then if you ALLOW them democractic rights they will vote for it!! Why does Freedom of thoughts, when expressed, outcome have to be prepackaged?

    I really hate the world right now! :eek:
  5. Jul 29, 2005 #4
    No need to shout at *me,* I pretty much expected exactly what's happening.

    I agree that you don't impose democracy from the outside. But that's not why we went in. We went to quell an "immediate threat." Remember? (I never believed it.)

    "Spreading democracy" was cooked up later, when it was beyond clear that there were no WMD. Bush couldn't bear the thought of saying he was wrong, so he came up with a new reason to invade.

    He is *still* tying the war to 9/11. :rolleyes:

    Edit: rereading your post, I don't really follow your position. I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or arguing with me. So my response may not make much sense to you. C'est le vie.
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2005
  6. Jul 29, 2005 #5
    sorry for shouting...

    My post was emotional, and it was because I thought that you were making derogitory comments at the Iraqis for using there free democratic right to start voting in a goverment they wanted...

    Is this why you said "Just gets better and better, doesn't it?"

    If not then sorry :blushing:
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2005
  7. Jul 29, 2005 #6
    Govenments in the Middle East have historically used; force, theology, or a combination of both at the national as well as the local level to administer the laws.

    The idea that the Bush Administrtion thought that they could change a form of governing that has existed for over a thousand years doesn't surprize me.

    The fact that the American People bought that "fairy tail" does.
  8. Jul 29, 2005 #7
    <chuckle> I wasn't making derogatory comments about the Iraqis. I was saying "stupid american warmongers."

    Selling a war to the public for no good reason. Then watching the deaths mount. Then watching the cost mount. Then getting bad forecast after bad forecast and shades of "quagmires." And having the reason for the invasion change every few months. (Our "war on terror" is currently being re-branded as a "Global Struggle against Violent Extremism".... Ummm.... why? I'm not sure, but it sure sounds like another switch to keep the effort palatable to the American people. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/26/politics/26strategy.html )

    The idea that after all this - after *all this,* the world ends up with a sacred text being the guiding principle for the "new democracy" is just.... You know.

    We backed Saddam when he provided a secular opposition to the Ayatollah, in my limited understanding. Now we have a quasi-religious leader in the US, getting rid of Saddam, and we're (possibly) watching Iraq become more religious as a *result* of this war. It will be interesting (and possibly very distressing) to see what happens to the role of women in the "new" Iraq.

    I don't like the world either. I don't like that my young kids are growing up with this "identity." Well, maybe if we're lucky their generation will have more sense, as a result.
  9. Jul 29, 2005 #8
    We forget - that wasn't the issue when he sold it.

    Rather, he told us we were in "immediate danger." Remember?

    All the yellow cake stuff coming to light now - does that ring any bells? Remember? The state of the union address? We "thought" Saddam was going to nuke Israel or Iran or somewhere.

    If he had tried to sell the war as spreading democracy, in 2003, he wouldn't have been successful. He (actually, probably Rove) came up with that to make us all feel better when our screw up over WMD became obvious. Let's not forget the sequence of events.
  10. Jul 30, 2005 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    It's the framers of the Iraqi constitution that are putting this in, not the Iraqi voting public. Were the delegates that are drafting this constitution even voted in? Will this constitution need to be approved by the voting public before ratification? If so, then so be it. If not, you can't claim that the 'people' of Iraq did this out of their free democratic right.
  11. Jul 30, 2005 #10
    Here is what women's rights are going to change from (I have bolded the more striking bits for emphasis):
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2005
  12. Jul 30, 2005 #11
    I think the US government is running scared for another reason. I know that the ties have been improving between Baghdad and Tehran over the last year or so:

    From what I understand, the second article about the dossier, the Iranians want the USA to stand beside Saddam in the dock because of their complicity.
  13. Jul 31, 2005 #12


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Can we claim Americans invaded Iraq out of their free democratic right? A caller submitted this opinion to CNN - Our constitution was created by very intelligent men and has served America well. Now that we aren't using it anymore, why not donate it to Iraq?
    Interesting that women's rights were strong under the Shah in Iran as well. Hmm... should we be worried about the right-wing conservatives in the U.S. who want a theocracy in which women's rights would be suppressed? :tongue:
    Will we ever know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? :rolleyes: One reason Saddam's trial has been delayed for so long is because they are getting the spin ducks in a row...
  14. Jul 31, 2005 #13
    Yes. Though I doubt we'll be wearing burkas, we will definitely lose liberties.

    It's happening right now. Roberts is about to be confirmed. I would never abort, but having been in a condition where I would have lost a job to carry a child healthfully.....

    Overturning RvW is definitely a threat to eroding women's rights. There are a thousand other manifestations of religiosity leading to lost women's rights. Equal pay, glass ceiling, increasing sexism.... You know, this christian community that is fueling the ultra right wing doesn't tend to have a whole lot of females in pastoral positions. The females are tending to make the lunches for the kids and cleaning up and so on.

    As you alluded in another thread.... my biggest fear is that Bush might actually get away, at some point, with preventing an election, as he floated a year ago. I could foresee him taking us into a conflict with Iran and using that as justification to stay head of state.

    Sick. The very fact that he *floated* the idea a year ago scares the **** out of me. This ain't the America I was taught that it was. What man in his right mind starts a war on false pretenses and then suggests that he has to stay in office as a result?
  15. Jul 31, 2005 #14


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    No. Since I already know that you think that and it seems self-evident - Iraq didn't vote to be invaded and there is no way they could have as they didn't vote on anything - I'm not sure why you're asking.

    Fine with me. It's a good constitution. But again, to be democratic, it would need to be ratified by a public vote of all voting citizens.
  16. Jul 31, 2005 #15


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Sorry 'bout the confusion. I was referring to Americans here in the U.S.


    The war did not have clear majority support by the people. Our representatives in our Republic did not represent us (wusses). The Executive Branch, and Commander in Chief, well he has proven to be unfit to lead.
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2005
  17. Jul 31, 2005 #16


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    It's their business how they handle government and religion.

    That said, interjecting religion into their constitution, especially now, is a very bad idea and Bremer was right to block it as long as he had a say. You have three main groups with different cultures that aren't going to be able to agree to the role religion plays in their government.

    If the Islamic law looks more like Shiite religious control, it will reinforce some Sunnis' fear of what life will be like under a Shiite majority - that the Shiites will use this opportunity to pay back Hussein's oppression with oppression of all Sunnis. It will prolong problems in the Sunni regions of Iraq.

    The Kurds won't be very excited about it either. The Kurds want as much autonomy for each region as possible. Unless the Shiites have the military might to control Iraq the way Hussein did, the Kurds aren't likely to accept having Shiite culture and laws pushed on them. The Iraqi's constitution definitely has to take the stance of limited central government and protection of "states' rights" if they want this to work. If the Kurds bolt and form their own country, the trouble spreads from Central Iraq to Northern Iraq to Turkey and Iran.

    Iraqis have a pretty tough challenge in banding some pretty diverse groups into one country. This doesn't seem like the time to be making the job tougher - especially if they're relying on outside countries to maintain what little stability exists there, now.
  18. Aug 1, 2005 #17


    User Avatar

  19. Aug 1, 2005 #18


    User Avatar

    As I understand it, the delegation has asked for a 30 day extension to contiinue putting together the new consitition. This would put the deadline to mid september and the vote sometime in November. What's the female to male ratio of voters in Iraq? Anyone? I suspect if it passes the election in the fall...then it will have been formulated to be accepted by the majority of Iraqi's including the women. If not..it goes back to be re-written.
    Democracy, what a lovely thing it is.
  20. Aug 1, 2005 #19
    As far as reason's for the war changing I seriously doubt they have. The propaganda may have changed but I'm sure that the real reasons haven't and I'm pretty sure that one of them was to oust Saddam and put a democratic government in place.
    They may not have voted for their constitution, at least not yet, but they definitely voted in the people who are framing it. It's their choice if they wish to have a government run by theocrats. I do hope that the women will retain their right to vote.
  21. Aug 1, 2005 #20


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Look, I don't exactly support this war, but since when has a military action required the consent of the voting public? The Americans actually over there fighting did consent - by joining the armed forces in the first place, knowing that someday they may be called to fight, and whether they approved of the reasons or not, it would be their job to do it.

    Look at your link a little more closely. The US has not declared a state of war since WWII. Congress gave the president the authority to commence military action, something that has been done many times before, in Korea, in Vietnam, and in Iraq the first time.

    Now what exactly does any of this have to do with Iraq's constitution, or do you just feel the need to throw a Bush bash into every thread, as a response to posts that have absolutely nothing to do with Bush or anything associated with him? Do you or do you not agree with me that Iraq's constitution cannot be considered democratic unless it is ratified by a majority of the full voting public? If you don't, say why. If you do, let that be the end of it. You don't need to justify it by listing all of the things America has done that you think were not democratic. Even if you're correct in your perception, two wrongs don't make a right. Don't respond to this by telling every way in which Bush and his cronies have lied to the American public and to Congress because it doesn't matter. It's irrelevant to the case at hand.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?