Afghan Constitution unveiled

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-11-04 12:50am

http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/nov/03afgh.htm

Afghanistan has unveiled its much-delayed draft constitution, outlining a strongly Islamic basis for the nation's future government and paving the way for elections in 2004, reports CNN.

It names the country as the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and lays the framework for a presidential style of government elected directly by the people.

The 12 chapter document, seen as a key step on the road to recovery for a country battered by two decades of civil war, will have to be formally approved by a constitutional grand council, or loya jirga, due to convene in Kabul next month.

"I hope this will be acceptable for the people and will direct people toward peace, security and democracy," former King Mohamed Zaher Shah said at a ceremony in Kabul marking the completion of the draft constitution.
Included in the constitution are rules on the formation of political parties, setting the stage for elections scheduled to be held next June, which is likely to contested by interim President Hamid Karzai.

But despite the strong emphasis on Islam as a unifying force, the hardline Islamic law practiced by the Taliban is not expected to make a comeback under the new constitution, says CNN.

"The draft is based on Islamic principles and recognises that no law can be contrary to the sacred religion of Islam," the commission said in a statement. But it makes no mention of the harsh sharia law practiced by the Taliban.

More of the usual bullshit...oh well, we gave it a shot.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-11-04 12:54am

What did anyone expect? Suppose you took all of America's hardline Christian fundies and made a separate country for them where they constitute upwards of 80% of the population: given free will to choose their own laws, what kind of laws do you think they would make?

That's basically what we've got in Afghanistan, after all.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-11-04 12:54am

Afghanistan will be a Taliban controlled Islamic state for at least the near future.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-11-04 12:57am

Frankly, this might have been the best we could hope for. I don't think think Afghans would have accepted their own version of the First Amendment. Hopefully, "Islamic principles" means that shops can't be open during Friday prayer, not that women have to go back to wearing ballroom drapes.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-11-04 12:59am

What we have here is a fundamental disconnection between the real and stated foreign-policy goals of America. Its real goals are to eliminate Islamic fundamentalism as a political force. Its stated goals are to topple "oppressive regimes" in order to "bring freedom to their peoples".

The problem is that Islamic fundie people generally want to have an Islamic fundie regime, despite the wishful thinking that they would all happily embrace American values if given a chance. Even if they hated the previous Islamic fundie regime, they would go and simply elect a new one.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-11-04 01:00am

RedImperator wrote:Frankly, this might have been the best we could hope for. I don't think think Afghans would have accepted their own version of the First Amendment. Hopefully, "Islamic principles" means that shops can't be open during Friday prayer, not that women have to go back to wearing ballroom drapes.

Perhaps not immediately, but it creates a legal structure which can inevitably be pushed toward hardline Islamic fundamentalism by virtue of enshrining the Koran into the constitution as an arbiter of legality.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-11-04 01:01am

It's the only thing that has a chance anyway, and it might just bring off some actual peace, which would greatly diminish support for terrorist groups. Al Qaeda got its bases not just through being popular for attacking the west; it was playing an important part in the Talaban's campaign against everyone not sufficiently insane enough.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-11-04 01:12am

AdmiralKanos wrote:What did anyone expect? Suppose you took all of America's hardline Christian fundies and made a separate country for them where they constitute upwards of 80% of the population: given free will to choose their own laws, what kind of laws do you think they would make?

That's basically what we've got in Afghanistan, after all.

Indeed. The only question that I want answered, is what rights will a woman have now? After all that's one of the many reasons Amnesty International had been whaling on Afganistan for a decade before 9/11.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-11-04 01:14am

I'm really disappointed that the United States didn't say "Secular, or fuck off." We're not even helping ourselves here, we're just allowing them to go back to Taleban control. Thats fucking stupid, if you ask me. Did we fight a war against terrorism and the states that support them only to reinstate one? Is the silly notion that Real Politik is useful still around? Haven't we learned that playing both sides against the middle doesn't secure anything but more problems? In 10 years when the Islamic state of Afghanistan starts acting up, we will again force ourselves on them, and they will hate us for interfering in their internal affairs -- something we could have prevented.

The United States needs to stand back, take a deep breath, and rethink how we're treating the world. We cannot continue to screw people over because we'll be able to cause a coup incase they disagree with us, and another for when the people we just put into power disagree. This policy of poking at and blowing air onto the embers in hopes that they burn up all the wood neglects to acknowledge that everytime we poke and blow on those embers, they get hotter, and eventually they start to burn.

And wow what a metaphor.