The attempt in 2004 to draft an interim constitution in Iraq and the effort to enact a permanent one in 2005 were unintended outcomes of the American occupation, which first sought to impose a constitution by its agents. This two-stage constitution-making paradigm, implemented in a wholly unplanned move by the Iraqis and their American sponsors, formed a kind of compromise between the populist-democratic project of Shi'ite clerics and America's external interference. As long as it was used in a coherent and legitimate way, the method held promise. Unfortunately, the logic of external imposition and political exclusion compromised the negotiations. Andrew Arato is the first person to record this historic process and analyze its special problems. He compares the drafting of the Iraqi constitution to similar, externally imposed constitutional revolutions by the United States, especially in Japan and Germany, and identifies the political missteps that contributed to problems of learning and legitimacy. Instead of claiming that the right model of constitution making would have maintained stability in Iraq, Arato focuses on the fragile opportunity for democratization that was strengthened only slightly by the methods used to draft a constitution. Arato contends that this event would have benefited greatly from an overall framework of internationalization, and he argues that a better set of guidelines (rather than the obsolete Hague and Geneva regulations) should be followed in the future. With access to an extensive body of literature, Arato highlights the difficulty of exporting democracy to a country that opposes all such foreign designs and fundamentally disagrees on matters of political identity.

In 2005, Iraq drafted its first constitution and held the country’s first democratic election in more than fifty years. Even under ideal conditions, drafting a constitution can be a prolonged process marked by contentious debate, and conditions in Iraq are far from ideal: Iraq has long been racked by ethnic and sectarian conflict, which intensified following the American invasion and continues today. This severe division, which often erupted into violence, would not seem to bode well for the fate of democracy. So how is it that Iraq was able to surmount its sectarianism to draft a constitution that speaks to the conflicting and largely incompatible ideological view of the Sunnis, Shi’ah, and Kurds? Haider Ala Hamoudi served in 2009 as an adviser to Iraq’s Constitutional Review Committee, and he argues here that the terms of the Iraqi Constitution are sufficiently capacious to be interpreted in a variety of ways, allowing it to appeal to the country’s three main sects despite their deep disagreements. While some say that this ambiguity avoids the challenging compromises that ultimately must be made if the state is to survive, Hamoudi maintains that to force these compromises on issues of central importance to ethnic and sectarian identity would almost certainly result in the imposition of one group’s views on the others. Drawing on the original negotiating documents, he shows that this feature of the Constitution was not an act of evasion, as is sometimes thought, but a mark of its drafters’ awareness in recognizing the need to permit the groups the time necessary to develop their own methods of working with one another over time.

Starting in Aug. 2004, the U.S. Inst. of Peace began providing in-country support on constitution making to Iraqi political, governmental, and civil society actors. The goal of this program is to maximize the transparency and inclusiveness of Iraq's constitutional process, enabling Iraqi citizens to engage directly with the drafters, and ensuring domestic ownership of the constitution. Morrow traveled frequently to Iraq. Through July and August 2005, he worked in Baghdad with Iraqi participants and with other international experts in the constitutional negotiations. He describes and analyzes the process of negotiating and drafting Iraq's constitution, and points to lessons for Iraq and for future constitutional processes. Map. A print on demand report.

What do we owe Iraq? America is up to its neck in nation building--but the public debate, focused on getting the troops home, devotes little attention to why we are building a new Iraqi nation, what success would look like, or what principles should guide us. What We Owe Iraq sets out to shift the terms of the debate, acknowledging that we are nation building to protect ourselves while demanding that we put the interests of the people being governed--whether in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, or elsewhere--ahead of our own when we exercise power over them. Noah Feldman argues that to prevent nation building from turning into a paternalistic, colonialist charade, we urgently need a new, humbler approach. Nation builders should focus on providing security, without arrogantly claiming any special expertise in how successful nation-states should be made. Drawing on his personal experiences in Iraq as a constitutional adviser, Feldman offers enduring insights into the power dynamics between the American occupiers and the Iraqis, and tackles issues such as Iraqi elections, the prospect of successful democratization, and the way home. Elections do not end the occupier's responsibility. Unless asked to leave, we must resist the temptation of a military pullout before a legitimately elected government can maintain order and govern effectively. But elections that create a legitimate democracy are also the only way a nation builder can put itself out of business and--eventually--send its troops home. Feldman's new afterword brings the Iraq story up-to-date since the book's original publication in 2004, and asks whether the United States has acted ethically in pushing the political process in Iraq while failing to control the security situation; it also revisits the question of when, and how, to withdraw.

An insider's account and analysis of the largest concentration of constitutional reform since the end of the cold war.

Political instability has characterised the modern history of Iraq, which has proven itself as a complex state to govern. However, the creation of a federal system in 2005 offers the potential for change and a deviation from a past characterised by authoritarian government, brutality and war. The Iraqi Federation explores why and how Iraq became a federal state, and analyses how the process of formation impacts on the operation of the Iraqi federal system. It argues that the different approaches taken by various federal theorists in the past, particularly William H. Riker’s bargain theory, are insufficient to explain the formation of the Iraqi federation completely. The process of the establishment of a federal Iraq must be understood in the context of its unique history and cultural specificity, as well as in the context of the other new federal models that have appeared since the end of the Cold War, including Belgium, the Russian Federation, Ethiopia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Nigeria. Drawing on interviews with contemporary political players in Iraq, this book helps to deepen our understanding of how one of the newest federal states operates in a practical sense. By linking the new federal models to the classic federal theory, it also provides a unique contribution to theories on federal state formation. It will therefore be of great interest to students and scholars of Middle East Politics, as well as those studying Federalism.