Council In Iraq Resisting Ayatollah

The Washinton Post ^ | December 2, 2003 | Rajiv Chandrasekaran

[Pan_Yans Wife]

A majority of Iraq's U.S.-appointed Governing Council has decided to support an American plan to select a provisional government through regional caucuses despite objections from the country's most powerful Shiite Muslim cleric, according to several council members.

The council's stance, the result of intense lobbying over the past few days by the U.S. administrator of Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, could result in a dramatic showdown with Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who has insisted that a provisional government be chosen through a national election. If the council persists in supporting the American plan, many in Iraq's Shiite majority, who regard the grand ayatollah as their supreme spiritual authority, may reject the provisional government as illegitimate.

"We are facing a very tense situation, perhaps the most tense since the end of the war," one of the council's Shiite members said. "None of us want a confrontation, but we have to realize we are traveling down a road that could lead to a very big confrontation."

[Dr. Frank fan]

Good.

[tractorman]

Maybe we should send the ACLU over there to show them how to separate church and state.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Maybe we should send the ACLU over there to show them how to separate church and state.

For Islamofascists the church IS the state.

[Gumption]

It is infinitely important for a government to have the consent of the governed.

[Dr. Frank fan]

It is infinitely important for a government to have the consent of the governed.

Sure. However, it is something-less-than-infinitely important for the new Iraq government to have the consent of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani.

Unless of course on assumes that the two (Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, "the governed") are interchangeable, which - however convenient a shortcut that may be - I believe would be a mistake.

Nobody seriously questions the need for the government to have the "consent of the governed", what is precisely at issue here is how that "consent" is determined.

[Gumption]

It's not WHO the Iraqis choose to lead them as long as the losers are assured a chance to right the perceived wrong.

If Ayatollah Whatchamacallit wins an election and decides to give all his countrymen the right to NEVER have to vote again, then that's a nonstarter because consent, even if initially given, can't be given for future generations of Iraqis. They must have a lawful means of changing their leaders that is predetermined and agreed to by all sides or else all that blood spilled for no reason.

I for one am fully prepared (and expect) to welcome a Shiite clerical leader of Iraq and give him a chance to do good or evil before I praise or condemn him as long as he knows his time to prove his worth to the country is short and under the direct eye of competing factions.

[Dr. Frank fan]

If Ayatollah Whatchamacallit wins an election and decides to give all his countrymen the right to NEVER have to vote again, then that's a nonstarter because consent, even if initially given, can't be given for future generations of Iraqis. They must have a lawful means of changing their leaders that is predetermined and agreed to by all sides or else all that blood spilled for no reason.

In other words, we have to make sure that the constitution retains some minimally democratic elements, no matter how much this or that ayatollah complains about it, and no matter how scary he is because he has such-and-such number of "followers".

Exactly my point.

I for one am fully prepared (and expect) to welcome a Shiite clerical leader of Iraq and give him a chance to do good or evil before I praise or condemn him as long as he knows his time to prove his worth to the country is short and under the direct eye of competing factions.

Well, me too.

My basic problem with this Sistani guy is that he is starting to make noises to the effect that "the constitution must be Islamic!" or "must make it clear that Islamic law is the law!", and I hope he is not listened to about that, at least not to a fatal degree.

Which is precisely why I wrote "Good." in post #2. Best,

[Unam Sanctam]

This is going to be sticky folks. The Ayatollah is being very unreasonable to require elections for the interim government, when he has already won elections for the Constitutional Convention, a referendum on the Constitution and of course elections for the permanent government. That said, it would be a real difficult if a significant portion of the religious Shiites boycott the whole constitutional creating process and the interim gov't as a result. And Sistani has in some ways been a moderate -- he has blasted the theocratic hell-raiser Sadr and has said that the clergy should not be directly involved in politics, other that issuing fatwas on general matters once in a while.

[McGavin999]

Sistani is a good man, although they shouldn't merely bow to his demands, they most certainly should take his council. He is opposed to the mixture of "church and state" because he believes it will corrupt the clerics. He has the best interests of the people at heart. They should meet with him and discuss the options.

[McGavin999]

He's worried about the corruption on the local councils. It appears that some Baathists have wormed their way into power and he wants to make sure that they are NOT chosen to participate (at least that's how I read the article). I do know that he's a good man and not in any way interested in power for himself.

[Unam Sanctam]

They should meet with him and discuss the options.

I understand he has consistently refused to meet with Bremer. He does however, meet with Governing Council members, including Chalabi and the head of SCIRI.