The al-Mada newspaper on June 30 published what is apparently a draft version of the equivalent to the Bill Of Rights that is being worked on by a subcommittee in the Iraqi legislature. Omar from Iraq The Model first reported this on that day and provided his commentary on the document, but ultimately it was too large to translate. Nathan J. Brown of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace provides a valuable public service by translating the entire document, so a big hat tip to him. Let’s take a quick look at some of the features of this bill, as it is very promising although there are some provisions that need much deeper looking into (and others not so much). Nathan also makes thorough observations. You can read it in full here.

The first problem that strikes me hard is provisions three and four of article one, which states:

3. Any individual with another nationality (except for Israel) may obtain Iraqi nationality after a period of residency inside the borders of Iraq of not less than ten years for an Arab or twenty years for any other nationality, as long as he has good character and behavior, and has no criminal judgment against him from the Iraqi authorities during the time of his residency on the territory of the Iraqi republic.

4. An Iraqi may have more than one nationality as long as the nationality is not Israeli.

Suspicion of Israel, as we all must know, is everywhere in the Middle East. Iraq needs to strike it from their constitution, however, if in fact this is being considered. I understand that they must be suspicious of Israelis commissioned by the government to obtain citizenship and act within Iraq’s political structure, but having this anti-Israel provision is highly symbolic and permanent. It would be better to work toward good relations, and then, with regards to the constitution, set a more general precedent for Iraq citizens not born to the country. A provision could be adopted, such as in the United States, where citizens not born in Iraq cannot run for high office (though, I can’t imagine one would win anyway). Besides, they should be concerned about foreign government meddling from organizations based in Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. They should take this into consideration moreso than long-standing Arab paranoia about Israel.

You will notice on many of the provisions that the phrase “in accordance with law,” or something similar, appears at the end. This means that the right is not guaranteed as absolute, but instead will be based on legislation drafted by the elected parliamentary body outside of the executive. As Nathan notes, however, this means that the law may be drafted in a way that severely limits the right, so much so that it may not even truly exist. This is something to be watched out for in the future. For an example, check out provision three of article six, in which, “Freedom of opinion, expression, publishing, printing, the press, advertising, media, meeting, peaceful demonstration, founding political parties, unions, and associations are guaranteed in accordance with the law. No one may be arrested or have his freedom restricted because of his belief, political thoughts, or religious convictions.” I can imagine that holding a certain belief and taking a certain action are two different things and will be dealt with differently in terms of legality (which makes sense, though other provisions are not so generous in restricting the suppressive potential of the law).

A probable way that such rights will be expanded or contracted by the “in accordance with law” wording will be indirectly by laws criminalizing certain acts. Article fourteen, for example, allows any citizen to participate in any civil organizations and no level of government may impede this participation except in accordance with law. This probably means that participation in organizations that promote and use violence against the government and the people will be illegal as doing so is illegal. To note, the Ba’ath party and its ideology are made illegal in the constitution.

A particularly noticeable aspect of this bill of rights is that of social services and welfare guaranteed. This is mostly given to women and children in article four, as the law considers “the family” as the most sacred body in society and the government must protect it. This means that there are protections for maternity leave, free health services for pregnant women, and much more. Pensions will also be paid to families of martyrs, victims of terrorist attacks, among other things. In “accordance with law,” I imagine this will be expanded or contracted based on how the government can afford to pay for it all. A lot of people do receive these benefits, including those simply unemployed, but article twelve stipulates that work is the right and duty of every citizen, meaning that one cannot simply sit around and collect a pension. The rest of the article makes it clear that in a time of economic distress, the state help provide jobs for those who would otherwise do this. This is definitely one of the more vague and dispersed aspects of the draft and the wording and context will need to be made more clear.

A promising sparkle of all this, however, is the promise of free and mandatory education for Iraq children. Most oil states have simply squandered their natural resources instead of investing them in the population. Article seventeen promises that natural resources are owned by the people and will be invested well. Using it for education and other such services that bring a return, as is probable, will guarantee a strong economic future for Iraq.

Back to women’s rights (and the rights of minorities), provision three of article twenty guarantees 25% representation of women throughout the government for “two stages,” at which point the selection will be open and based on ability. This is a good way to allow women to prove themselves without creating an enduring quota that could result in incompetence, though the “two stages” is not defined.

Article fifteen is also among the most interesting, as it establishes “due process” guarantees for Iraqis, including those found in our own constitution. Most government acts against individuals can only take place under the backdrop of judicial supervision. The most striking part of this article is its strong emphasis on the illegality of torture, punishment for those who use it, and the striking of an evidence obtained under torture. Article twenty-one then guarantees compensation should a government official deprive someone of these rights.

Article twenty-two brings up the issue of Islamic sharia in the context of international treaties. This is mentioned elsewhere, and as Nathan notes, there is no standard set in this document that accounts for how sharia is put into practice. It would likely be put elsewhere in the constitution, but its sheer mention is interesting In the same article, it says that non-Iraqis will enjoy all of the same human rights as long as they comply with prevailing moral values and public manners. Integration is expected in any society, but this could be lax or strict depending on what body advises on sharia. Preferably, one will not exist at all and the language specifically referring to Islamic law will be removed, though I am not too worried about it.

Provision three of article twenty-three deals with the right to bear arms, of which, “Citizens may not own, bear, buy, or sell weapons, except by a permit issued in accordance with law.” The likely situation will be that criminals and terrorists will be the ones to ÄhopefullyÅ lose out, instead of the general populace who need weapons for personal defense from these same people

Overall, it is an interesting read, though I would say somewhat vague at times and certainly repetitive. The part I would most criticize would be the deferring of certain important rights to the legislature, instead of the enshrining of them as natural and absolute. Since this is just a draft, the final version will still have to be edited further, sent to the full commission, edited some more, integrated with the rest of the constitution, edited even more, and then put up for approval by the National Assembly followed by national referendum. There is less than a month for this to take place, yet the Iraqi government is assuring the world that it will be ready. Judging by this draft, and considering that I did not delve into every single detail of it, I believe they are making genuine progress toward what will be a shining example for the rest of the region.

It has certainly been one of the most mesmerizing documents I’ve read in awhile, and it takes me back to a Madisonian wonderland in my head of how hard it must have been in the shaping of our own liberal democracy. A Bill Of Rights, however, is impossible to enforce if the proper mechanisms of government are not put into place; that is, a separation of powers, an independent judiciary, a strong legislature, etc. That is yet to be seen — or leaked, for that matter, though the Iraq model is sure to inspire. If nothing else, it is a refreshing reminder of why America is encouraging and aiding in the expansion of freedom and democracy around the world. Iraq is on that path and there’s no stopping it.

UPDATE: Meryl Yourish thinks I’m wrong, at least on the reason for Iraq’s exclusion of Israelis. I submit to her point that anti-semitism was likely a root cause in this. Check out her comments for our discussion. I also raise a thought I just had, that being the fact that Iraq would actually be recognizing Israel as a sovereign state, something that other Arab countries don’t do. Interesting.

NEW DRAFT ALERT: A new draft has been circulated on July 20. I’m working on an update now.

HERE’S THE NEW POST: Here. The last draft does not have a clause discriminating against Israelis for citizenship, among many other improvements. Check it out.