It seems like that has become the overwhelming meme in the new Iraqi government. Essentially, when the majority doesn’t want to negotiate anymore on what makes a country a real country, they cut off debate and bypass the minority. Somehow, I’m not sure that that is how things went in Philadelphia. The New York Times has the story on today’s front page:
“Iraqi leaders presented a disputed constitution to the country’s parliament on Sunday, overriding the objections of Sunni negotiators, sending the document to voters and setting the stage here for a protracted period of political conflict.
The Sunni negotiators, who included former members of the Baath Party of Saddam Hussein, publicly denounced the constitution and called on Iraqis to send it down to defeat when it goes for a vote on Oct. 15. Some Sunnis said they expected guerrilla violence to surge.
A Sunni member of the constitutional committee, Mahmoud al-Mashadani, said, “We have reached a point where this constitution contains the seeds of the division of Iraq.”
In the face of those developments, President Bush, at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., praised the constitution as a milestone in Iraqi history, congratulating Iraqi leaders for “completing the next step in their transition from dictatorship to democracy.” Mr. Bush emphasized what he described as the charter’s protections for individual rights, and he tried to allay concerns about opposition from Sunni leaders.”
Transition to democracy? That’s the biggest bullshit line if I’ve ever heard one. Democracy respects and works with the minority factions/parties/groups in the state. In Iraq, when the constitution did enough for the Shi’ites and the Kurds, it was taken right past the Sunnis and given to the people. Maybe Bush’s views on democracy are a bit different since he uses his power of the majority to bypass the minority in Congress quite often, but at least we as the minority have peaceful accountability measures. What measures do the Sunnis have in Iraq, the new Islamic republic?
Unfortunately, anti-Democratic overtones already seem to be coming from the current Iraqi president Jalal Talabani:
“We didn’t have elections that determined that these people would actually represent the Sunni Arabs,” said Mr. Talabani, a Kurd. “They say they talk in the name of those who did not participate in the elections.”
If this was anywhere near the democracy that Bush and Co. claimed it was, political representation would take care of the entirety of the electorate, not simply those who participated. The children in Iraq don’t get to vote, but they get representation.
Unless they’re Sunni children, I guess. Or any other Sunnis who did vote.
Oh, and the Times again decides to rely on Ahmad Chalabi to make some kind of a point, ridiculous as it may be. Today’s point? Fashion of Iraqi leaders:
“For such a momentous occasion, the 40-odd leaders who gathered in the courtyard of Mr. Talabani’s palace evinced noticeable restraint. The gathering showcased the political elite of the new state: with the exception of the Kurds, who spent years in their American-protected enclave in northern Iraq, nearly all of the senior leaders had spent many years living outside Iraq. Some, like Ahmad Chalabi, wore Western suits, while others, like Sheik Humam Hamoudi, donned turbans and flowing robes.”
Which makes us ask the question: Why the hell is Ahmad Chalabi still a leader in Iraq and not sitting in a prison cell somewhere with Judy Miller? (And btw, the Times is still whining about that too.)
