To vote or not to vote? That is the question that the Arab Sunni community in Iraq is asking as it ponders what position to take vis-à-vis the proposed draft constitution.
The question is not easy to answer. There is much in this draft that the Sunnis, along with most other Iraqis, like. The draft guarantees their individual human rights, protects their faith and culture, and points the way to a future in freedom and prosperity. At the same time, however, the proposed draft paints a picture in which the Arab Sunni minority will never be able to see itself in control of virtually all levers of power, as was the case before the war.
While it is too early to predict what the Arab Sunnis will do, one thing is certain. A majority of them have decided to remain active within the electoral process, that is to say seeking to get a better deal through elections rather than via insurgency and terrorism. In this the Arab Sunnis, accounting for some 15 percent of the population, are joining Iraq’s other communities that, for the time being at least, seem to favor ballots to bullets. The showdown will come on Oct. 15 when the proposed draft is put to a popular referendum.
Legally, the proposed draft could be killed if any three provinces, out of the 18, reject it with two-third majorities. Politically, it could also die of anemia, which is to say if it is approved by a small majority in a low turnout.
This is why Iraqis from all ethnic and religious backgrounds are queuing up to register to vote. They understand the stakes involved. No one knows how many of those who are rushing to register intend to kill the proposed draft with their votes.
Even before its publication the proposed constitution had been attacked by those who had opposed the liberation of Iraq in the first place.
The main attacks focused on two issues. The first is the fact that the draft has angered Arab Sunni elites by proposing a federal structure for the new democratic state. But this is no way related to religious differences, as some nostalgics of Saddam Hussein in the West pretend.
The Arab Sunni elites believe that a federal structure makes it harder for them to, one day perhaps regain the dominance they once enjoyed. A highly centralized state in which power is concentrated in Baghdad would be more vulnerable to a military coup d’etat or a fascist-style putsch through which the Sunni elites could seize power when and if the opportunity arises.
But when all is said and done the fact remains that a majority of Iraqis seem to prefer a federal structure if only because they fear the return of despotism based on a strong central power in Baghdad. The least that anyone can do is to respect their views even if one does not agree with them.
But how true is the claim, made in so many articles in the Western press in the past few days, that the Sunnis are enraged with the draft?
The truth is that we do not know the answer. Unlike the Shiite and Kurdish representatives who were elected members of Parliament, the Sunni politicians in the drafting committee were government appointees. The reason was that the Sunnis, having boycotted last January’s general election did not have enough parliamentarians to dispatch to the drafting committee.
We shall have to wait until the referendum in October to find out whether a majority of Sunnis share the apprehensions of the Sunni politicos in the drafting committee. If they do they could block the draft by voting against it in at least three of the four provinces that have Arab Sunni majorities.
The second issue used by many to attack the draft is related to the role of Islam. Many members of the drafting committee wanted Iraq to be re-named “The Islamic Republic of Iraq” like Pakistan, Iran, The Sudan, and Mauritania. The Iraqis, however, decided not to use the label “Islamic”, a sign that they do not wish to set up a theocracy.
What they did, however, was to acknowledge Islam as the religion of the state and a main source of legislation. They also stipulated that no legislation should contravene the basic tenets of Islam. Had they not done so it would have been virtually impossible to persuade a majority of the Iraqis to vote for the new constitution.
Does this mean that the new constitution cannot be democratic?
Not at all.
The draft recommits the nation to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of which Iraq was one of the original signatories. While no legislation could directly contravene the principles of Islam, it is also clear that there could be no laws that violate the principles of democracy and the basic human rights as spelled out in the Universal Declaration.
There is a wealth of Islamic jurisprudence spanning almost 14 centuries. And there is no reason why parts that may still be relevant and useful should not be taken into consideration in drafting modern laws.
In any case the last word on lawmaking will remain with an elected organ and not a group of self-appointed theocrats, as is the case in neighboring Iran.
As far as laws relating to economic and trade matters are concerned, many of the doctrines that Islamic jurisprudence has developed over centuries have been quietly reformulated in the past decades. For example, Islamic jurisprudence bans banking and insurance. But the Muslim world today is full of banks and insurance companies.
Charging interests is also banned in Islamic jurisprudence. In real life, however, interest is paid and received in nearly every Muslim country every day, albeit under a different label.
Even where Islamic jurisprudence is crystal clear, for example on taxes, not a single Muslim state today bases its fiscal policies on it.
Some critics are concerned that giving Islam a prominent place in the constitution could lead to “reactionary legislation” on such issues as marriage and divorce and the status of women.
That concern, although understandable, may be exaggerated.
Politically, all parties are agreed that women should retain their newly won quotas and thus maintain a strong presence in political life, especially in the Parliament.
When it comes to issues of personal life, notably marriage, divorce and inheritance, it is important to remember that all issues of personal life in Islam are regarded as contractual matters that could be handled in many different ways.
For example, marriage which is regarded as a sacrament in Christianity is no more than a civil contract (aqd-e-nikah) in Islam.
On such issues of personal life the best course is not to pit the state against religion, while making it clear that the state will not tolerate the unjust treatment of any citizen against his or her will. Pitting the mosque against the state on issues of personal life has already produced much hardship in Turkey where militant secularism ignores the deep religious feelings of a majority of citizens. The result is that, when it comes to issues of personal life, many citizens simply ignore the state, creating a parallel reality.
The Iraqi draft is not ideal. It will not transform Iraq into the Switzerland of the Middle East overnight. The text includes articles that one could not accept without holding one’s nose. But the fact remains that this is still the most democratic constitution offered to any Muslim nation so far. More importantly, the people of Iraq have the chance to reject it if they feel it does not reflect their wishes. That, too, is a chance that few Muslim nations have enjoyed.
With the new constitution Iraq is taking a giant leap away from despotism. Many had hoped that Iraq would take a bigger leap. But wishes, alas, are not horses, at least not in politics.
