I should've paid more attention when you posted this. Reading the draft is kind of disturbing.

The thing that struck me right away was a contrast with the US Constitution. Where our Constitution is designed so that its part support the whole--it has structural integrity--the draft Iraq constitution embodies conflict right from the beginning:

Article (1): The Republic of Iraq is an independent, sovereign nation, and the system of rule in it is a democratic, federal, representative (parliamentary) republic.

Article (2): First, Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:

a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.

b) No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy.

c) No law can be passed that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms outlined in this constitution.

Yet later parts of the constitution guarantee rights that would seem to conflict with sharia law, such as the rights granted to women. It seems inevitable that from the moment the constitution is ratified, the new judiciary is going to be overwhelmed by demands to reconcile those conflicts.

There's ambiguity in the words, though it may just be an artifact of the English translation. Does the phrase "undisputed rules of Islam" mean that the rules of Islam should not be disputed; or does it mean that only the part of the rules of Islam that are universally accepted should govern? If the latter, that's a guarantee of future conflict if anyone disputes some part of the accepted rules.

Another general thing that struck me is how much of the constitution is devoted to specific issues that matter today, such as terrorism, and outlawing the Baathist Party. It seems like the Iraqis are less focused on the big picture than were our Founders.

There are contradictions all over between different parts of the document. The basic principle of Article 2, establishing that Islamic law is the primary source of Iraqi law, is in conflict with:

Article (5): The law is sovereign, the people are the source of authorities and their legitimacy, which they exercise through direct, secret ballot and its constitutional institutions.

Freedom of speech gets very weak protection under this constitution. Too many exceptions carved out, and the protection of speech is ultimately at the whim of the government:

Article (7):

1st -- Entities or trends that advocate, instigate, justify or propagate racism, terrorism, ''takfir'' (declaring someone an infidel), sectarian cleansing, are banned, especially the Saddamist Baath Party in Iraq and its symbols, under any name. It will be not be allowed to be part of the multilateral political system in Iraq, which should be defined according to the law.

2nd -- The state will be committed to fighting terrorism in all its forms and will work to prevent its territory from being a base or corridor or an arena for its (terrorism's) activities.

Notice the use of terrorism to justify weak free speech protection. Shades of the USA "Patriot" Act--sounds like something from the Bush Administration wishlist. Seriously, contrast this with our own principle that even the most repugnant thought and speech is protected; we wouldn't write a prohibition against, say, the KKK or Neonazism, into our own Constitution.

And geez, how do you prohibit a "trend"?

Article (4):

1st -- Arabic and Kurdish are the two official languages for Iraq. Iraqis are guaranteed the right to educate their children in their mother tongues, such as Turkoman or Assyrian, in government educational institutions, or any other language in private educational institutions, according to educational regulations.

That's a crackup compared to the fighting over multilingualism here in the US. The thought that the government will have to provide education in whatever language is claimed to be the "mother tongue" is exactly the nightmare of American conservatives. While I'm not an English-only bigot, I have to concede the practical benefits of a common language in promoting social cohesion. This article is going to cause the Iraqis a lot of pain in the coming years.

Article (16): Equal opportunity is a right guaranteed to all Iraqis, and the state shall take the necessary steps to achieve this.

This too has proven controversial in the American experience. What is meant by "equal opportunity"? A government guarantee of employment (such as that enjoyed by Iraqis under Saddam [as long as they remained in favor])? Quotas? "Affirmative action"? Another article that's just asking for trouble.

1st -- Each person has the right to personal privacy as long as it does not violate the rights of others or general morality.

The exception in cases that violate the "general morality" appears in several places in the document, and again, just what the heck does it mean? Who defines the general morality? In setting up what appears to be a tyranny of the majority, the stage is again set for future conflict.

It's not all bad. I think that this is an elegant and simple formulation that would have strengthened our own Consitution:

1st -- The judiciary is independent, with no power above it other than the law.

"No power above it other than the law" appears to be more than an empty sentiment. An interesting feature of the sections on the judiciary is that, unlike the US, the judiciary itself nominates judges and submits them to the legislature for approval. That would remove a major source of political conflict that we're seeing right now in our own system, and the general conflict of interest between our judiciary and the executive branch to which judges owe their employment.

7th -- Court sessions will be open unless the court decides to make them secret.

Right. Why bother to even have this provision?

(b) No one may be detained or investigated unless by judicial decision.

Poor wording--it would seem to prohibit such mundane police duties as traffic stops. This one too will have to be adjudicated into sense.

2nd -- The state is committed to protecting the individual from coercion in thought, religion or politics, and no one may be imprisoned on these bases.

It's in places like this that conflict set up by the initial declaration of the primacy of Islamic law become very apparent. If Iraqi law is based on religious belief, then isn't the law itself a basic form of coercion of thought? Isn't a non-Muslim, or a Muslim whose sect doesn't require strict obedience to sharia law, being coerced in thought? Religion and government don't mix...duh.

I'm following the document itself, so if it seems like I'm jumping around, it's because the document jumps around. Returning to freedom of speech:

Article (36): The state guarantees, as long as it does not violate public order and morality:

1st -- the freedom of expressing opinion by all means.

2nd -- the freedom of press, publishing, media and distribution.

3rd -- freedom of assembly and peaceful protest will be organized by law.

There's that slippery exception for "public...morality" again. And now that I think about it, the language "the state guarantees..." bothers me. In our system the state guarantees nothing: Its rights are circumscribed by the Constitution and all powers not granted to the Federal government belong to the citizens.

And then there's that clause about how assembly and protest must be "organized by law". Requiring, by implication, government permits for assembly and protest, is a serious abridgment of the freedom of speech.

Overall it seems like this consitution grants way too much power to the State.

More not-bad--this is commendable:

Article (38): The freedom of communications and exchanges by post, telegraph, telephone and by electronic and other means is guaranteed. They will not be monitored or spied upon or revealed except for legal and security necessity in accordance with the law.

Article (41): Every individual has freedom of thought and conscience.

Except, of course, where it might conflict with Islamic law.

2nd -- No Iraqi can be exiled or forced out or forbidden to return to his nation.

No power of deportation? That could be a problem.

There are a lot of areas that I haven't highlighted as problems that should work out pretty well. The structure of the Executive branch, while a bit different from our own, should work well. The judiciary has the proper balance of independence and accountability (notwithstanding the built-in conflicts with religious law). The bicameral legislature should generally work as expected, except that defining a seat as representing 100,000 citizens is going to lead to a proportionately larger lower house than our House of Reps. I believe our ratio is currently closer to a million-to-one. A larger legislature may provide better represntation of minorities, but it will also lead to more conflict and perhaps more gridlock. If nothing else, the voting will take a lot longer.

Reading the draft puts the delays in a new light. They should not ratify this beast in its current deeply-flawed form. That's just asking for a world of hurt down the road. Yeah, sigh, back to the drawing board.