Replies

Why isn't this author comparing our constitution to the one MacArthur put together and IMPOSED on the Japanese? Why? Because that was a good constitution, not a piece of crap like the ones the Iraqis have come up with.

MacArthur himself commented early on that meeting this goal would certainly require a "revision of the Meiji Constitution." But even he could not have imagined that a few months later, his young American staff would write an entirely new constitution, one that has governed Japanese affairs ever since without the change of a comma.

The Japanese did go to work,>>>>but MacArthur rejected their efforts<<<<< in early February 1946 as "nothing more than a rewording of the old Meiji constitution." Eager to avoid interference from other allies, MacArthur took matters into his own hands. He ordered his government section to draft a document themselves, and to do it before the first meeting of the Far Eastern Commission, set for February 26. Staff member Beate Sirota Gordon, then in her early twenties, still remembers the day well:

And he said, "You are now a constituent assembly." "And you will write the Japanese constitution. You will write a draft and it will have to be done in a week."

Their work resulted in a thoroughly progressive document.

A bi-cameral legislature with a weak upper chamber was established, and with the exception of the Imperial family, all rights of peerage were abolished. Thirty-nine articles dealt with what MacArthur called "basic human liberties," including not only most of the American bill of rights, but such things as universal adult suffrage, labor's right to organize, and a host of marriage and property rights for women. But the most unique and one of the most important provisions came in Article 9, which outlawed the creation of armed forces and the right to make war. It's not clear whether or not the "No-war clause" originated with MacArthur, but it certainly would not have been included without him, and its presence in the constitution has had an enormous impact on Japan's postwar history.

The new Iraqi constitution
Article (2):
1st - ISLAM is the official religion of the state
AND
is a basic source of legislation:

(a) NO law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of ISLAM

These two clauses act as Koranic Vetoes over the rest of the constitution and thus render it null and void.

Lets remember that the radical Shiites are 60 percent of Iraq, yes Iran is also - in fact Shi'a Muslim 89%, and thus the Shiite are the ones who will interpret what CONTRADICTS Islam. You think women will be able to wear shorts when its 110 degrees outside let alone have equal rights? Do you think Christians will be able to worship? Nope. But you can bet Americans will still be called infidels.
Listen to what the present SHIITE Prime Minister has to say about that:

....Iraq's Prime Minister is Ibrahim al-Jaafari....
Asked if his government would institute Islamic Shari'a law, al-Jaafari replied: "Yes … that is only natural in a country that is populated mainly by Muslims."

"This is a new chapter in relations with Iraq," enthused Iranian Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref during al-Jaafari's visit. Agha Panayi, an Iranian intelligence official, has offered a similarly enthusiastic assessment: "Throughout Iraq, the people we supported are in power."

Our troops are giving real sacrifice they should be recieving for that REAL FREEDOM.

No blood for Islam.

We must insist that the Constitution of Iraq is one that is not one that will allow them to become another Iran. Those Iraqi politicians want those Oil pipes guarded and their own security guards then they need to guard against going back to 7th century Islam.

I agree with you about the Constitution that MacArthur imposed on the Japanese. But there is no entity that can do in Iraq now, what he did then, in Japan. General MacArthur was, in fact, a military dictator, given the powers that he had as a result of the Unconditional Surrender and the fact that MacArthur was in sole charge of the "Allied" occupation of Japan.

When it works well, the "best" form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. It is an extension of Plato's philosophy of government by "philosopher kings." It worked with MacArthur in Japan. It worked with Kemal Ataturk in Turkey. In all other instances in history, such efforts led to bloody dictatorships, did they not?

John / Billybob

You say, "* * * *
The new Iraqi constitution
Article (2):
1st - ISLAM is the official religion of the state
AND
is a basic source of legislation:

(a) NO law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of ISLAM

These two clauses act as Koranic Vetoes over the rest of the constitution and thus render it null and void. * * * *"

They have an official State religion. Big deal. And there was, as memory serves, quite a little debate over the article "a" in the part that reads, "is a basic source of legislation". It does not say THE basic source, It says "a" source. Again, big DEAL.

Instead of selectively quoting only a very small portion of the draft document, it might help to include the WHOLE draft Constitution. Because if you take the time to look at the whole thing (including the RIGHTS portion), you will find that there is, under the proposed Constitution, NO discrimination permitted on account of religious belief -- or apostasy even. The document is actually pretty remarkable.

Perfect? Probably not. That's darn subjective, anyway.

But good under all the circumstances? You bet. That's not a guarantee it will work, btw. But it could and it's a darned sight better than what they had.