Iraq's interim constitution first step of many

It took a while, and the delay has been a profound embarrassment to the United States and the Iraqi Governing Council. But Iraq now has an interim constitution, signed by all 25 members of the council.

It’s a start, but only a start, on a road whose destination few would be foolish enough to predict.

On paper, this is an impressive document, vesting control of the military in civilian hands, setting up a federalist structure and guaranteeing freedom of religion, freedom of thought and expression, peaceable assemblies, fair trials with a presumption of innocence, periodic elections and voting in periodic fair elections. The transitional Iraqi government will have checks, balances, separation of powers and a freely elected legislature.

There were delays, and Iraqi Shiites (or at least their most vocal leaders), who constitute about 60 percent of the population, still have reservations. However, as Joshua Muravchik of the American Enterprise Institute (a longtime advocate for using American power and influence to spread democracy) said, “At least Ayatollah Sistani didn’t kick over the table. He and his people are still engaged in the process. I think the interim constitution is a real landmark.”

As Ted Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, said, however, “A paper constitution won’t resolve underlying tensions.” Among the issues that have been postponed are whether the Kurds in the north will be able to maintain independent militias and control the oil fields around Kirkuk.

The Shiites, in their turn, are concerned that the interim constitution gives the Kurds an effective veto over the adoption of a final document.

Muravchik thinks it is significant and hopeful in the long run that most of the objections to U.S. transition plans have stressed they weren’t democratic enough — that elections weren’t being called soon enough or that an interim government would not have legitimacy until it was the result of a free election. “When they’re talking the language of democracy, I’m encouraged,” he said.

Nobody believes the transition will be easy. Carpenter thinks the most likely eventual outcome is “a housebroken version of Saddam — somebody elected but holding the country together by authoritarian and sometimes brutal methods.”

We hope Muravchik’s relative optimism is warranted but suspect the transition to Iraqi sovereignty will be, as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld put it in a different context, “a tough slog.” Whatever develops in the next few months, the faster genuine authority is turned over to Iraqis rather than Americans, the better.