In my post yesterday, “Perspective on Islam in Iraq’s constitution,” I argued that Afghanistan has near similar wording in its own constitution and that the mainstream media didn’t harp on it in January 2004. Afghanistan has also not turned into a religious police state like Iran since then. So why is the media barking lunacy over the Iraqi constitution?

Alenda Lux was kind enough to prove me wrong. No, not that the media didn’t talk bad about the Afghani constitution, but they actually praised it lavishly. Here is what the New York Times said in an editorial back then:

Afghanistan’s new Constitution offers hope that the beleaguered nation can finally evolve into a modern, democratic state. Forged from weeks of bitter debate at the constitutional loya jirga, or grand council, the document sets the stage for the first real elections in more than two decades, possibly by summer. And it balances the goal of an Islamic state with the promise to abide by the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. America’s ambassador to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, was right to call it “one of the most enlightened constitutions in the Islamic world.” Now comes the difficult part: turning a decent constitution into a working democracy.

It is possible to see how the promises in this Constitution could be sidestepped by powerful interests in Afghanistan. Many freedoms, like the right to create social organizations or the right to publish without government censorship, could still be limited by laws. That seems to mean that some future president and Parliament could create legislation that would, in effect, shut down news organizations or limit other freedoms. A judiciary that leans heavily on the most conservative Islamic judges rather than on those trained in civil law could be overly restrictive in its judgments. And with the best of intentions, the protection of freedoms will be difficult in a chaotic and increasingly unsafe nation.

Still, there was good news in this document and the way it was approved. The Constitution specifically grants equal rights to women, even promising two Parliament seats in each province to women. That is clear progress after years under the Taliban, which did not believe in women’s education or even adequate health care. A nation of many ethnic groups, most represented at the loya jirga, now has a Constitution that grants some respect for languages other than the dominant Pashto or Dari. And for those worried about the role of the presidency, the president’s powers were softened slightly by adding a second vice president and by giving Parliament the right to approve presidential appointments.

The Bush administration, justifiably thrilled by the outcome, has also acknowledged that the constitution cannot be put into effect without the continued support of the United States and its allies. Future elections would best be run under the wing of the United Nations, but President Bush and his allies will need to help provide the political support and military security to make presidential and parliamentary elections possible.

In the end, Afghanistan’s Constitution, like all such documents, is really a catalog of promises, a framework for the dreams of a new and better government. This one provides an excellent foundation for creating a better Afghanistan.

They could practically copy and paste this editorial, switching out Afghanistan for Iraq, and re-run it on the front page. Nobody would be able to tell the difference, excepting the dire melodramatic tone. Now, the big question is, does the media have amnesia, or does it have an agenda?