By Pepper of the Daily Pepper Today's vote on the Iraqi constitution happened with minimal violence. At least one critical day has passed without crowds of people dying. Even though the counting just started, we're likely going to see waves of Purple Finger Photos as the administration trumpets the referendum's success.
But Just Another Bump in the Beltway points to the WaPo:
The document they will ratify or reject shifts crucial decisions about government, the judiciary and human rights to a future national assembly, and it may itself be rewritten in the first half of next year. Though planned as a landmark in Iraq's postwar reconstruction -- and still described that way by the Bush administration -- the referendum has been stripped of much of its substance.
What are the Iraqis voting for anyway? On this blog, I have stated my serious issues with the constitution, and the constitution will soon be molded like a lump of clay whether people vote yes or no. It seems slightly odd that an administration with such a determination to place strict readers of the constitution on the high court is endorsing a constitutional process that essentially leaves everything up in the air.
On PBS' "NewsHour," Juan Cole was there to critique the constitution, but others on the panel endorsed it, not because of the constitution itself but because it was important to get the Iraqis used to the democratic process. Is the referendum damaged goods? Or is the act of voting more important than what's being voted on? I feel conflicted in this regard, especially after an American election in which "Vote or Die!" was a major slogan. Americans often don't get off their cans to vote, but isn't the subject matter of the voting just as important?
