Is this any way to enact a constitution?
Quick contrast: in 1787, our Constitution required passage in the legislatures of 9 of 13 states, more than 2/3 of the states, to be enacted.
This year, the Iraqi constitution requires approval of 1/3 of the voters in all 18 provinces to be enacted.
Why would a constitution be valid when only a minority -- a 1/3 minority, no less -- approves of it? How could it be valid if it was accepted by less than the majority of the population? Historically, when a government is established by a minority, that government is, well, tyrannical. In our own country, out of a reasoned understanding that, as individuals will not support a measure that will harm them, a majority could not form except to support something mutually beneficial, passage of the Constitution had to be based on a 2/3+ majority. Legislatures, sure, but the legislators are answerable to the voters of their states; adult, non-slave males were the only voters, but, well, that's the way it was.
If you go to the trouble of enfranchising everybody (correcting, at least, one deficiency from the 18th century), to require less than a simple majority to establish a government is, well, an obvious effort to establish a tyrannical government. A government supported by less than half of the population can be created only through military force, and, in this case, that force is ours. That's not the way to spread democracy, even if democracy were what we actually should be spreading. We should spread the ideas of individual sovereignty, the rule of law, and civic responsibility, such that individuals within existing countries will form groups that will use political means, if possible, or military means, if necessary, to bring about a limited, constitutional democracy. If we don't do that, we should be satisfied with providing an example of such a government at home, not one that relies on dirty tricks to stifle or punish those who criticize current policy, or one that twists intelligence estimates to justify an unjustifiable policy, or one that appears to allocate the funds extorted from its population to benefit those who are allied with the current establishment.
At any rate, how can yesterday's vote on the Iraqi constitution be viewed as anything other than an imposition by the United States of a tyrannical regime?
This year, the Iraqi constitution requires approval of 1/3 of the voters in all 18 provinces to be enacted.
Why would a constitution be valid when only a minority -- a 1/3 minority, no less -- approves of it? How could it be valid if it was accepted by less than the majority of the population? Historically, when a government is established by a minority, that government is, well, tyrannical. In our own country, out of a reasoned understanding that, as individuals will not support a measure that will harm them, a majority could not form except to support something mutually beneficial, passage of the Constitution had to be based on a 2/3+ majority. Legislatures, sure, but the legislators are answerable to the voters of their states; adult, non-slave males were the only voters, but, well, that's the way it was.
If you go to the trouble of enfranchising everybody (correcting, at least, one deficiency from the 18th century), to require less than a simple majority to establish a government is, well, an obvious effort to establish a tyrannical government. A government supported by less than half of the population can be created only through military force, and, in this case, that force is ours. That's not the way to spread democracy, even if democracy were what we actually should be spreading. We should spread the ideas of individual sovereignty, the rule of law, and civic responsibility, such that individuals within existing countries will form groups that will use political means, if possible, or military means, if necessary, to bring about a limited, constitutional democracy. If we don't do that, we should be satisfied with providing an example of such a government at home, not one that relies on dirty tricks to stifle or punish those who criticize current policy, or one that twists intelligence estimates to justify an unjustifiable policy, or one that appears to allocate the funds extorted from its population to benefit those who are allied with the current establishment.
At any rate, how can yesterday's vote on the Iraqi constitution be viewed as anything other than an imposition by the United States of a tyrannical regime?
posted by heavynettle at 22:01
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home