Comments on a constitution for Iraq, part 2
Iraq, 8/27/2005

Tomorrow, the Iraqi political factions will be discussing the draft constitution, in what maybe the day that they will be able to settle their differences. At such a critical time to Iraq, it is worth going over some issues one more time.

In the "A constitution for Iraq" story, I had elements that should be in the Iraqi constitution. I will go over one of these amendments here: "Every law that is to be adopted has to have 1. The economic costs it incurs on society. 2. Benefits and return on investment it brings 3. Cost to freedom due to complexity or compliance. This information is to be associated with the law in an addendum, calculated and explained to the most explicit level possible, by the best available means possible, by the independent government accounting office."

Government by its nature will seek to increase its own growth and control, and there needs to be a counteracting force. You hire conservatives, liberals, socialists, communists, etc. And the result seems to be the same. They, each of them, are interested in using government for "their" own interests. The interests are different, but the results, are the same, more government and laws that are not rationalized.

Saying "Every law that is to be adopted has to have economic costs and benefits it incurs on society" should not seem like such a radical idea. So why is not being adopted? If you want a rational government, then what can be more useful in this regard than this simple amendment?

The average citizen has very little awareness of the laws being passed typically by a parliament. The parliament will act in its own interest first, and then in the interest of the public. If we did not make such an assumption, then we might as well end the conversation here. We have to assume that everyone acts in his own interest, and the job should be to establish a system, where, the parliament, will be acting in open and transparent manner, so that the citizens can have the needed information about the performance and behavior of the parliament, so that citizens can decide well at election time.

If you want to govern yourself as citizens, and not be governed by a parliament and the complexity of issues, then this is one of the most important laws that would facilitate this goal.

Since this amendment, is not a law in any country I am aware of, there is the practical problem of how does the parliament and government bodies deal with this issue, in terms of practice. The law requires nothing more than best effort to meet its requirement. Therefore, if the parliament is passing a law, and it does not know its costs and benefits in detail, then it should merely state so as best it can. The statement can be as simple as "we don't know how to calculate concretely the benefits and costs at this time." That's it. Future parliaments maybe. Future generations maybe may want to revisit such laws. A civic organization, or a concerned person, or party, may decide to volunteer such effort. This is a process of rationalization and learning. It forces the government as well as citizens to think in a different manner. It teaches them rationalization. It takes away from the emotions and the politics to produce the best available law, by placing in motion forces that will be beneficial to this process.

These are the benefits of this law: Rationalization of government. Transparency of costs and benefits. Discipline against bad laws, and complex laws. Discipline against abuse of office. Encourages a culture of rational thinking about problem solving. Forces the development of tools for rational problem thinking: establishment of data centers, collection, distribution, their scientific analysis to be the foundation of laws. A car today, or a computer, or a plane are built on facts, rational scientific method, laws. There is absolutely no reason why this should not be the case for the process of law creation and governance. This is one of the most important constitutional amendments that would lead a government and society in this direction.

Such a manner of thinking about laws, is a radical way of practice. But this is the proper way. Looking at laws in this manner will force new mechanisms and ideas about how laws should be enacted.

There is something fundamentally wrong with the way societies today go about writing laws. This amendment, is self-evident in its correctness. The mere fact that government will have to learn a new way of doing things is not a defense for continuing to do something that is being done poorly.

Since Iraq is starting all-over from scratch, it might as well force itself to do things right, and to learn good habits. It was the Code of Hammurabi, of old Iraq, that got much fame for setting new standards. There is no reason why Iraq cannot do this again.

Iraq does not deserve a constitution that as good as there is in the Arab states, or one that is as good as those of Europe or the United states. Iraq deserves even better. It would be a shame if those who understand these ideals do not act to make sure they become a reality.

Author,
Jamil Talaat Kazoun

Previous Stories:
  Comments on a constitution for Iraq, part 1   (8/27/2005)
  Comments on a constitution for Iraq, part 3   (8/27/2005)
  Iraqis have learned little from the past   (8/26/2005)
  A constitution for Iraq   (7/2/2005)

Please add a link on your webiste pointing to ArabicNews.com and bookmark ArabicNews.com & subscribe to our daily email news bulletin.

Search