New Constitution undemocratic and autocratic.
The Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) is to sign a draft constitution which will prepare for a hand-over of full sovereignty to Iraqis on 13th June, a document which is so controversial it is almost certain to cause tensions.
Firstly, neither the IGC nor the Constitution have the backing of the Iraqi people because they have not been consulted. The IGC was appointed arbitrarily by the US administrator, Paul Bremer. It was not elected.
As for the contents of the constitution, they are so divisive and controversial that the IGC had to delay the announcement that the document was to be signed because of the heated arguments over key areas such as the role of Islam, women's rights, the Kurdish question and the power share of the Shiite community.
Being a draft, the constitution is temporary in nature and could be ratified or not by the National Assembly (Parliament) set up after the occupying military forces hand over power to the Iraqis on 13th June.
This being the case, what is the point of imposing a constitution drawn up by an arbitrarily appointed undemocratic body, which itself has problems in agreeing on its contents, instead of waiting for a democratically elected organism to draw up and present a constitution to the people of Iraq for
them to decide whether to accept or reject it?
How arrogant can Washington become and how many more problems does the Bush regime want to create in Iraq?