An Iraqi Constitutional Deadlock, Such a Bad Scenario?

I just want to say, I'm with Mickey on this:

[W]ould it really be so terrible if the Iraqis failed to come up with a new constitution and the National Assembly were dissolved and new elections held? Just asking! Presumably more Sunnis would participate in elections the next time around, resulting in a more representative constitution-drafting group--and a constitution more likely to placate Sunni dissidents (and embolden Sunnis who may be willing to risk supporting the new state). [ Bolding Mickey's]

A deadlock and subsequent disolving the National Assembly would obviously be bad in the short-term, especially in P.R. terms. But as Mickey says, on substantive grounds doesn't it hold the possibility of a much better outcome?  I suppose the danger is that  the next National Assembly could deadlock again. So that's a risk. But getting Sunni participation seems like an enormous potential plus--and a far more lasting one.

Comments/thoughts/criticisms welcome.

Comments

[Cal]

Obviously there are too many variables to know for sure, but here are 2 reasons why this might be a bad situation:

1) Even if the Sunnis do vote in substantially higher #'s this time, it's not at all clear that this would give them much power.

Allawi got what, 15% of the vote(?), and he's completely shut out of the process so far as I can tell. The Sunnis make up about 15-20% of the country, and would similarly be shut out, even if they voted as a bloc, which is unlikely. They're much more divided than either the Kurds or Shias right now.

2) It's quite possible -- if not probable -- that turnout overall would be lower, which would give the future gov't less legitimacy.

I can't tell you how many stories I've seen about Iraqis who are disappointed by the results of the last election. They risked their lives to vote and got nothing. Now we're going to ask them to do it again?

But that's just one news junkies' opinion. Take it for what it's worth.

[Josh Narins]

First, I just found this blog. Nice work.

Second, if they renamed the party of RW Reagan and GW Bush it would be to the PR Party, so, the PR implications are significant in their eyes, more so than any messy details in reality.

Thirdly, the usual phrasing is (emphasis in original).

Fourth, the Bush administration can not help but notice that their own guys don't have much support, while the pro-Iranian factions (I gather, perhaps erroneously) are consolidating power. I'm not sure what percentage of UIA are actually pro-Iran, but it is more than just the top two sub-groups (SCIRI and Dawa). Ergo, elections, especially in the light of a failed constitutional process, would (I'm guessing here) tend to increase the support for the Sharia and/or Iranian factions.

Fifthly, the Sunnis were given extra representation in the constitution drafting group. "Robust" Sunni voters in the election would tend to undermine any arguments that they'd get extra representation again. Who selected the Sunni constitutin drafters? I betcha it was the USA. In this sense, elected representatives of the Sunnis might be a far better choice. But I'm not even sure the US picked them in the first place.

Sixthly, I, as a liberal democrat, don't want the blame. I can hear the punditocracy's pens dripping with bilious ink, slavering over the chance to get to blame liberals for the failure of the constitutional process. That, and, I don't want the Iraqis to get the blame from the "They can't handle it" crowd.

In reality, they _should_ have been trying to tackle these toughest questions first, and gone from there. Without that as a program (certainly used, for the most part, in 1787) I have serious doubts.

[christian louboutin]

Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money ; it lies in the joy of achievement , in the thrill of creative effort .(Franklin Roosevelt , American president )