Iraq's Constitution

Tim Worstall has a close look at Iraq's current (and previous) constitutions. There is a rule of thumb that the longer the document and the more "rights" a constitution contains, the more regulated and less free the citizenry. Having a written constitution doesn't prevent abuse of state action.

My entry into the "not worth the paper it's written on" Constitution contest started by Tim:

Article 18 of the Constitution of the USSR stated that:
In the interests of the present and future generations, the necessary steps are taken in the USSR to protect and make scientific, rational use of the land and its mineral and water resources, and the plant and animal kingdoms, to preserve the purity of air and water, ensure reproduction of natural wealth, and improve the human environment.
Yes, the Aral Sea being an obvious example.

UPDATE: The WSJ strikes a more positive note.

Comments

[Guvnor]

The Iraq Constitution. Now history should remind us that Iraq is not very good at this sort of thing. With the exception of Saddam Hussein, most leaders of Iraq struggled to stay in power for more than a few years without being overthrown. When leaves the question, what will happen when the British and American troops finally do leave Iraq? I give democracy a month.

I was in support of the war, I firmly believe we need to see this through to the bitter end and free Iraq from terror. The problem is, nobody seems to get on. And there is a huge power vacuum that somebody has to fill. Tony Blair should have been firm when making a case for going to war, and not been bullied by the left to find a better reason to go to war with Iraq than ridding the world of Saddam Hussein. The reasons for going to war were right, sadly on reflection, it has been a PR disaster and an excuse for people who already hate the west to play the victim and justify killing innocent people on a daily basis. Which we knew sooner or later would hit London.

Now, the whole thing is looking bleak. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, or something like that. And now the British and USA alike are in a lose/lose situation. If they give in to the loony left and leave, they will be accused of leaving the Iraqis up a creek without a paddle. If they stay, terrorism is justified by the apologists, and of course George Galloway.

In retrospect, I can understand now why Saddam Hussein was such a ruthless and evil dictator. It was a case of survival for him and Iraq. Survival of the fittest some would say. But the USA and UK were never going to lose a war with him, and neither will they with terrorists. But it is the resolve of the British and American public which concerns me.

Iraq probably was best run by Saddam Hussein. Every few years we drop a few bombs on him and destroy his WMD's (which we DID find, just they weren’t such that could hit us in 45 minutes due to range issues). He probably wanted us to believe he had weapons of mass destruction, because he ruled his country with fear. Maybe if he stopped antagonising us so much he would still be in power, but I doubt it. The reasons are because, even though George W Bush gets all the stick as a war monger, it was American Policy when Bill Clinton was president to resolve the Iraq situation.

Where now for Iraq? My guess is, if troops ever can justify leaving the people of Iraq to run their own country. All hell will break out, even worse than it is now. The government will be overthrown, and Iraq will be ruled by another ruthless despot.

*I think I might go post this on my weblog too. Excellent blog by the way.

[Arthur]

Thanks, Guvnor.
I fear that many other regimes in the region are waiting - and conspiring - for the great Iraqi experiment to fall apart. There is nothing that Syria and Iran would like more than for the whole thing to fail.
Our grandchildren will surely puzzle why a region blessed with mineral riches had such an inability to bring its peoples to economic and political liberty.