This is bad

Yes, this is bad. This is very bad.

There is, I believe, very little chance of a consensus constitution appearing in Iraq any time soon. And that's my optimistic view. The differences that have existed from the very beginning, from before the beginning, still exist and I see no reason to believe that they will suddenly be resolved in the next 24 hours.

In a move worthy of Congressional GOPpers, the Iraqi parliament received a draft of the constitution literally minutes before the (extended) deadline on Monday, avoiding the political disaster of having to dissolve and conduct new elections. As the Times (UK) described it,

[t]o loud applause, [Hachem al-Hassani,] the speaker [of the parliament,] announced that the deadline had been met. Then to stunned confusion, he dismissed parliament without a vote, calling for three more days of talks between political leaders.

That is, they "met the deadline" but still gave themselves more time.

But not only is there still no agreement, there is even disagreement over what the disagreements are. One thing that most everyone does agree is an issue is federalism: the Kurds and Shiites are for it, the Sunnis are adamantly against it. They're so adamant, in fact, that it's all but impossible for me to see how they could agree to a draft that contains it. (Indeed, the feeling is so strong that Sunni negotiators could be risking their lives if they agreed.) Despite that rejection, the draft contains specific and detailed provisions for federalism; it even refers directly to "the federal system in the republic of Iraq." Under those provisions, provinces have the right to form (or to join to form) regions which have specific powers of local government - and regions have the right to combine into bigger regions. That presents the exact specter of a "super Shiite region" in the south that the Sunnis fear, as Iraq's oil fields and the associated wealth are mainly in the (Shiite-dominated) south and secondarily in the (Kurdish-dominated) north, with the (Sunni-dominated) central and western areas relatively devoid of known oil fields. Promises of "fair" distribution of that wealth by a central, likely Shiite-dominated, government do not reassure them.

Again, at least everyone seems to agree that remains a matter of contention. The role of Islam is a different matter. Some, such as

President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, [have] insisted the Islam issue had been solved and "you will see in the constitution that it is not a problem."

That is, the role of Islam, declared "the official religion of the state" and "a basic source of legislation" in the draft text of the Constitution, is a settled matter. But, the New York Times reported,

[s]ome secular Iraqi leaders complained Tuesday that the country's nearly finished constitution lays the groundwork for the possible domination of the country by Shiite Islamic clerics,

arguing that the very phrasing that supposedly resolved the issue is one of the document's problems. They say further that the draft

appears to grant judges wide latitude to strike down legislation that may contravene the faith. To interpret such legislation, the constitution calls for the appointment of experts in Sharia, or Islamic law, to preside on the Supreme Federal Court.

The draft constitution, these secular Iraqis say, clears the way for religious authorities to adjudicate personal disputes like divorce and inheritance matters by allowing the establishment of religious courts, raising fears that a popularly elected Islamist-minded government could enact legislation and appoint judges who could turn the country into a theocracy,

with all that implies for rights, especially those of women. These people are worried that those "experts in Sharia" will inevitably be clerics, who will be in a position to block implementation of laws that they decree violate the "basic beliefs of Islam." In other words, Iraq will be Iran.

But here another point arises: There seems to be some disagreement about what the document actually says. Rather than saying laws can't violate the "basic beliefs" of Islam, the translation of the text as provided by AP says "No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam" [emphasis added], considerably stricter language that would give less leeway to the guardians of Sharia on the Supreme Federal Court. Which is right? I can't read Arabic, so I certainly don't know, although I would tend to give the benefit of the doubt to those who question the provision since I can't imagine they wouldn't see the difference.

There are other issues as well:

- The Transitional Administrative Law's guarantee that the Council of Representatives (the parliament) will include a certain percentage of women has been downgraded to a "transitional guideline" inb the draft, which women fear will ultimately leave them unable to participate in the government.

- The guarantee of education has been limited to primary school (some wanted it to include secondary school).

- The draft says "the followers of every religion and sect are free in the practice of their religious rites," but specifically mentions the Husseiniya (Shiite) rites, raising the possibility that Shiite practices are being raised above others.

- Sunnis are upset about the banning of the Baath Party and the continuation of the National De-Baathification Committee and the banning of anyone covered by the committee from holding any official position in the federal or regional governments or the judiciary, a provision they see as targeting them as a community and cutting too many Sunnis out of eligibility for government posts.

- And overall, the Sunnis are just pissed at essentially being iced out of the negotiations toward the end. In fact, they're pissed about the whole business.

"I don't trust the Shiites anymore," said Mr. [Saleh] Mutlak, the Sunni leader. "Frankly, I don't trust the Americans."

Still, I expect there will be a draft ready for a vote on Thursday, just in time to beat the deadline. And I expect the draft will be rammed through; another delay would be politically costly by boosting the sense that the Sunnis are ultimately running the show.

There is another issue here. Bush's support on Iraq is already tanking, CNN reports:

Fifty-six percent of those polled [August 5-7] said they thought things were going badly for the United States in Iraq, and 43 percent said things were going well. ...

57 percent said the war has made the United States less safe from terrorism - a number that has risen dramatically in just two months when 39 percent said the U.S. homeland was less safe. ...

54 percent said they believe it was a mistake to send U.S. troops to Iraq; 44 percent said it was not a mistake.

With Bush grabbing onto the draft constitution to bolster his flagging support, calling the document "another important victory over the terrorists," the option of the collapse of the process and new parliamentary elections could be such a political disaster for the Shrub team that I can't see the US allowing it.

So the draft will be passed and the date for the nationwide referendum on the document will be set of October 15.

And then the fun could really start.

Sunni Arabs are determined to vote it down[, The Times (UK) reported].

They boycotted January's elections, but are now registering in their thousands as part of a concerted "no" campaign by local leaders, clerics and sheikhs. ...

Banners, sermons and leaflets have all exhorted people to vote against the constitution....

"There is no doubt that all the people here will say no to the constitution because nobody here trusts the Government and nobody wants the country to be divided the way the other groups want it," Mr Samaraai said. Jamal al-Shimari, a neighbour, agreed. "It's not going to be a constitution. It's a conspiracy to divide the country," he said, referring to the federal demands of the Shias and the Kurds.

If two-thirds of voters in at least three of Iraq's 18 provinces reject the Constitution, it will be voted down and a new national assembly will be elected to start the process over again. Sunnis, while only 20% of the total population, hold a majority in four provinces and a two-thirds majority in three.

At the same time, The Times points out, some elements of the insurgency, opposed to any cooperation with any government program, even to making a constitution, as long as foreign troops are in Iraq, have already announced an intention to keep people from voting on "the devil's constitution."

Three members of the Sunni Iraqi Islamic Party were killed in a square in Mosul after being caught putting up voter registration posters. A day earlier in Ramadi, Sunni leaders came under fire as they entered a mosque for a meeting on the subject.

So we could well see Sunnis fighting Sunnis, Shiites fighting Shiites, Sunnis fighting Shiites fighting Sunnis, Kurds trying to go their own way, and Shiites still holding to the notion that at the end of the day, their majority will enable them to lord it over everyone else.

This is bad. This is very bad.