Stay Connected
Facebook Twitter Youtube RSS Media Alerts

May 3rd, 2010, by Mohammad Hashim Kamali

Mohammad Hashim Kamali

View Mohammad Hashim Kamali’s GEF profile here

The U.S and Europe tend to see drafting a constitution as a way toward a negotiated peace, especially in post-conflict situations. In theory, this may seem appealing. But it can also cause greater instability by accentuating the wishes of a majority of citizens over a suppressed minority. It may be relatively easy to impose an election in a given country. It is far more difficult to establish legality, a commitment to basic rights, and a constitutional order of checks and balances within the institutions of government.

If democracy can be defined as ‘popular political self-government,’ a simple definition of constitutionalism could be ‘the containment of popular decision-making by a basic law.’ At the heart of constitutionalism lies the deliberate choice of a representative government to constitute its political life in terms of commitment to a binding agreement by the ruler and ruled, structured so as to be difficult to change. As Ronald Dworkin put it, ‘the constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights, is designed to protect individual citizens and groups against certain decisions that a majority might want to make, even when that majority acts in what it takes to be the general or common interest.’ Apart from its obvious relevance in all societies, this aspect is of concern particularly to politically polarized and ethnically divided societies, such as those of   Iraq and Afghanistan.   Constitutions are drafted either at the end of a conflict to seal its outcome or prior to the eruption of conflict in an attempt to stave it off.

In Iraq, for example, the occupation powers attempted to forge a national and political reconstruction through the medium of a constitutional drafting. After an inordinate amount of cajoling, a document was drafted and ratified in 2005 but the process of arriving there severely exacerbated existing divisions and yielded a document many feared would ultimately lead to the disintegration of the state. Afghanistan provides a similar example, although different in some ways, but the constitution that was drafted and ratified (January 2004) under the auspices of UNAMA (UN Assistance Mission for Afghanistan) and American support has fallen short not only of its desired objective of facilitating a negotiated peace between the rival factions, but may have actually exacerbated factional rivalry and political instability in the country. In the midst of an on-going conflict, and against the background especially of a humiliating foreign occupation, it is questionable whether the process could live up to the expectations made of it. The same holds true for external attempts at mediation which sometimes pre-empt the emergence of a stable social consensus. This seems to be the case with external constitutional support   also given to political and military actors in the Sudanese and Somalian civil conflicts.

Commitment to justice, constitutionalism and judicial review can ultimately provide the necessary protection against the ‘tyranny of the majority.’  There is strong empirical evidence that constitutional legality will in time nurture democracy, but that democracy on its own will not necessarily bring a constitutionally committed government. Democracy and constitutionalism are not only different concepts but can exist in a state of tension, as the former advocates majoritarian preferences, whereas the latter imposes pre-existing restraints on the range of choices available to governing majorities.
The western experience since 1945 has largely embodied both democracy and constitutional government, making it thus difficult to imagine the two apart. Yet evidence shows that only in the late 1940s did most western countries  become actually democratic, and that importantly, already a century  earlier most of them had put in place  significant constitutional elements such as the rule of law, private property rights, free speech and assembly and increasingly also a constitutional separation of powers, without being democratic. Government in North America and Western Europe was not characterized as much by democracy as by constitutional legality.  Thus according to an informed observer,  “the western model is best symbolized not by the mass plebiscite but the impartial judge.” Some agreement seems to have developed over time that the best realizable form of government is a mixed or constitutionally structured, government, in which freedom is constrained by the rule of law, and popular sovereignty is tempered by state institutions that produce order and stability. Even if we do not conclude that democracy is simply not viable in an environment of intense ethnic preferences, it seems evident that merely holding elections is insufficient, and that additional institutional mechanisms and constitutional restraints are necessary to make it work.

Early indicators over the results of the recent parliamentary elections in Iraq suggest a contentious scenario between the two leading figures, one whom has yet to concede to the election results. Iraq is at a politically precarious situation that calls for skilful handling and restraint on all sides to prevent a new twist to the Iraq conflict. Also, the electoral fiasco that left President Karzai in a severely compromised predicament and even more dependent on   foreign military presence and support does not bode well for the future of Afghanistan. The scale of conflict has widened, corruption is more rampant now and the rule of law also a more remote prospect – after a new constitution, two presidential elections, and a second parliamentary election due this year. The prospects of a sustainable peace for Afghanistan now seem to be linked to the promised exit of the U.S military – that is also ironically likely to precipitate a regime change in Kabul. If the U.S indeed leaves Afghanistan in 2011, a traditional Loya Jirga (Grand Council), not the foreign powers, should plan its political future.

Tags: , , , ,


One Response to “The Western model is a failure in Iraq and Afghanistan”
  1. Nice article. Interesante!

Stay Connected

Facebook Twitter Youtube RSS
Media Alerts