Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni negotiators have approved an important change in the new Iraqi constitution, a document that voters will approve or reject in an historic vote this weekend. The Guardian reports odds for passage are now seen as greatly enhanced. Sunni leaders had been urging a "No," vote and it only takes a two-thirds majority of voters in three of the country's provinces to defeat the constitution. Now, things are looking up.

The central addition allows the next parliament, which will be formed in Dec. 15 elections, to form (a) commission, which will have four months to consider changes to the constitution. The changes would be approved by the entire parliament, then a referendum would be held two months later.

That is no guarantee that Sunnis will be able to make the changes they seek. They are likely to have a stronger representation in the next parliament, but would still face a strong Shiite and Kurdish majority that would likely oppose major changes. Sunnis fear that the draft constitution as it stands will fragment Iraq, because it allows Shiites and Kurds to create mini-states in the oil-rich north and south, leaving Sunnis in a poor central zone.

Which sort of begs the question: can't Sunnis develop an economy that's not dependent on oil? And which begs other questions, legitimate ones, about some degree of shared revenues with central, Sunni Iraq from the Kurdish north and Shiite south. All this glorious policy haggling is what goes into the birth of real nation, along with the killing of many Iraqis (Shiites) by other Iraqis (Sunnis) and Islamist terrorists from abroad. It will continue to be a difficult slog, but passage of the constitution would be a huge step forward from the dystopia of Saddam's thug-ocracy. Maybe now the Iraqi "insurgents" (increasingly hardline Sunnis, and less often al Qaeda of Iraq) can even stop killing people before this weekend's vote on the constitution.

Wouldn't that be special?

TECHNORATI TAGS: IRAQ, CONSTITUTION, SUNNIS

TO COMMENT: The regular "comment" feature is not in operation. E-mail comments to address under "Contact" on main page masthead, and I'll add them, here.

Tom Rekdal: Instead of crossing our fingers and hoping for the best, isn't it time to start using our troops to influence the political outcome in Iraq? The constitution may be their choice, but whose side we are on and how we support it is our choice. And there are sides to be taken here, not just vague goals like "democracy in the Middle East."

In what I take to be the first sign of intelligence on the Democratic side of this argument, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan has suggested that we use our leverage over troop deployment to pressure the Shiite factions into more negotiations with the Sunni factions. Right on.

140,000 troops are obviously insufficient to pacify the entire country, but they are more than enough to piss off most Sunni Arabs and lull most Kurds and Shiites into the illusion that we will do their fighting for them. It is
long past time to change both perceptions. Our only objective should be an Iraqi government that is stable and does not suck the oil pipeline to fund terrorism. Whether such a government is run by Shiites, Kurds, or Sunni Arabs, in a democratic or undemocratic manner, is none of our business.

Posted by Matt Rosenberg at October 11, 2005 05:51 PM