En résumé, on leur offre la démocratie... Vont-ils l'accepter?
Si comme disaient certains la démocratie est un indicateur du degré de civilisation d'une nation, nous saurons vite où se situe le peuple irakien...

Comme tout les régimes sont en fait démocratiques, car aucun régime ne peut tenir sans la participation du peuple, il faut chercher ailleurs ce degré de civilisation qui peut être très élevé dans une dictature. Un système qui favorise la stabilité plutôt que la confrontation que l'on affuble du nom de " Démocratie " est un bon choix à condition que des forces intérieurs ne cherche pas à le miner. En parallèle un haut niveau de moral peut garantir une certaine réussite, un consensus de paix relative. C'est un équilibre fragile qui doit être entretenu pour ne pas tomber dans la déliquescence dans laquelle se vautrent beaucoup de nos systèmes dit démocratiques. L'Irak n'a rien à démontrer, elle s'impose une nouvelle façon de faire qui favorisera une certaine uniformisation avec cette majorité de pays qui cherchent la stabilité. Désolé, rien à voir avec le degré de civilisation.

Un court article de Michael Barone sur le sujet
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneblog/columns/barone_050825b.htm
Si l'on aboutit à un état islamique, j'abondanne Bush, toute l'opération n'aura été qu'un énorme gâchis (sans toutefois me trouner vers les démocrates, seul Joe Liebermann a une position cohérente sur la défense national, et il n'a aucune chance dans une présidentielle).

Ludovic, avez-vous un lien vers l'article de Taheri? Merci d'avance

Lire "j'abandonne" au lieu du monstre-valise et "tourner" et "nationale". Bon, je vais me faire un troisième café :o)

Du NYT:
Divided They Stand

* Sign In to E-Mail This
* Printer-Friendly

By DAVID BROOKS
Published: August 25, 2005

President Bush doesn't lack for critics when it comes to his Iraq policies, but the smartest and most devastating of these is Peter W. Galbraith, a former United States ambassador to Croatia.
Skip to next paragraph

Related More Columns by David Brooks
Readers
Forum: David Brooks's Columns

Yesterday, after reading gloomy press accounts about the proposed Iraqi constitution, I thought it might be interesting to hear what Galbraith himself had to say. I finally tracked him down in Baghdad (at God knows what hour there) and found that far from lambasting Bush, Galbraith was more complimentary about what the administration has just achieved than anybody else I spoke to all day.

"The Bush administration finally did something right in brokering this constitution," Galbraith exclaimed, then added: "This is the only possible deal that can bring stability. ... I do believe it might save the country."

Galbraith's argument is that the constitution reflects the reality of the nation it is meant to serve. There is, he says, no meaningful Iraqi identity. In the north, you've got a pro-Western Kurdish population. In the south, you've got a Shiite majority that wants a "pale version of an Iranian state." And in the center you've got a Sunni population that is nervous about being trapped in a system in which it would be overrun.

In the last election each group expressed its authentic identity, the Kurds by voting for autonomy-minded leaders, the Shiites for clerical parties and the Sunnis by not voting.

This constitution gives each group what it wants. It will create a very loose federation in which only things like fiscal and foreign policy are controlled in the center (even tax policy is decentralized). Oil revenues are supposed to be distributed on a per capita basis, and no group will feel inordinately oppressed by the others.

The Kurds and Shiites understand what a good deal this is. The Sunni leaders selected to attend the convention are howling because they are former Baathists who dream of a return to centralized power. But ordinary Sunnis, Galbraith says, will come to realize this deal protects them, too.

Galbraith says he is frustrated with all the American critics who argue that the constitution divides the country. The country is already divided, he says, and drawing up a constitution that would artificially bind three divergent societies together would create only friction, violence and civil war. "It's not a problem if a country breaks up, only if it breaks up violently," Galbraith says. "Iraq wasn't created by God. It was created by Winston Churchill."

One of my other calls yesterday went to another smart Iraq analyst, Reuel Marc Gerecht, formerly of the C.I.A. and now at the American Enterprise Institute. Gerecht's conclusions are often miles apart from Galbraith's, but they have one trait in common. Both of them begin their analysis by taking a hard look at the reality of Iraqi society. Neither tries to imagine what sort of constitution might be pretty to our eyes or might be good in some abstract sense. They try to envision which system comports with reality.

Gerecht is also upbeat about this constitution. It's crazy, he says, to think that you could have an Iraqi constitution in which clerical authorities are not assigned a significant role. Voters supported clerical parties because they are, right now, the natural leaders of society and serve important social functions.

But this doesn't mean we have to start screaming about a 13th-century theocratic state. Understanding the clerics, Gerecht has argued, means understanding two things. First, the Shiite clerical establishment has made a substantial intellectual leap. It now firmly believes in one person one vote, and rejects the Iranian model. On the other hand, these folks don't think like us.

What's important, Gerecht has emphasized, is the democratic process: setting up a system in which the different groups, secular and clerical, will have to bargain with one another, campaign and deal with the real-world consequences of their ideas. This is what's going to moderate them and lead to progress. This constitution does that. Shutting them out would lead to war.

The constitution also exposes the canard that America is some imperial power trying to impose its values on the world. There are many parts of this constitution any American would love. There are other parts that are strange to us.

But when you get Galbraith and Gerecht in the same mood, you know something important has happened. The U.S. has orchestrated a document that is organically Iraqi.

It's their country, after all.

Une voix d'Iraq:
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2005/08/iraqs-constitution-how-long-is-tunnel.html

Encore un excellent papier trouvé sur le blog d'Al !

"Britain has an established Church of England, and the prime minister effectively (and the Queen formally) chooses the Archbishop of Canterbury. Canada provides public funding for Catholic and other religious schools. France bans girls from wearing headscarves in schools. Germany prohibits the publication of Nazi materials. We don't do any of these things, and most Americans wouldn't want to. But who would argue that Britain, Canada, France, and Germany are not acceptable representative democracies with acceptable levels of human rights ?"

"the multi-sect, multi-ethnic character of Iraq is actually helpful in forging an acceptable democracy. It forces constitution-makers to confront squarely the age-old dilemma of representative government, how to reconcile majority rule with minority rights. In a mono-ethnic, mono-sect state, or one in which one group is the overwhelming majority (Shiite Iran, Sunni Egypt), that issue doesn't necessarily present itself, and you risk getting the tyranny of the majority that our own Founding Fathers strove to prevent."

Constitution making
Michael Barone
USNews
8/25/05
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneblog/columns/barone_050825b.htm

" Il n'y a plus lieu de faire une exception pour le Moyen-Orient", a-t-il dit ( Lorne Craner ) à propos du mouvement mondial de démocratisation. Nombre de personnes doutaient autrefois que la démocratie puisse s'implanter en Amérique latine ou en Asie de l'Est, et maintenant ces deux parties du monde comptent un grand nombre de régimes démocratiques. "Les sceptiques ont tort en ce qui concerne le monde musulman, comme ils ont eu tort auparavant. "

http://pages.zdnet.com/plm/id47.html

http://usinfo.state.gov/francais/

Intéressant, ce parallèle et ce rappel historiques rapportés par YMS ... Effectivement, que ne se disait-il pas autrefois sur l'Amérique latine et l'Asie orientale à l'époque des juntes militaires et des régimes d'hommes forts ? Et qui pariait alors sur la démocratisation desdits régimes ... ?

Mais moi, j'avais juste une question par rapport à l'intéressant billet du blogueur irakien (Al a décidément la main heureuse aujourd'hui !) : quelqu'un sait ce qui motive l'opposition au fédéralisme du... petit Sadr ? Ou alors il fait juste son numéro pour se distinguer des grands: Sistani & co ... ?

"Actually the Sunni politicians right now are concentrating on the claim that the latest delays in the process are illegal and are in violation of the TAL and probably they're thinking that the Shiite alliance is weakening after the latest conflict between the Sadrists and the SCIRI and that will probably encourage the Sunnis to adhere more to their demands since they think that the position of Sadr men in the National Assembly (who also oppose federalism) could more or less double their influence on the process. "

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2005/08/iraqs-constitution-how-long-is-tunnel.html

jc c'est là . On peut dire blood for oil and power ;o):
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=17607
Merci du compliment, mais sans Google, ma main serait malheureuse

Et je dirais même plus:
http://www.publiuspundit.com/?p=1601
C'est plus une vague d'encre, c'est une inondation, sur cette constitution. Enfin, les lecteurs de LM sont parmi le splus renseignés et intelligents du monde, c'est la moindre des choses...

Quel service !

Merci donc à Google pour l'info !

Je vois mieux effectivement le problème pour les Sunnites si, au-delà des trois grandes régions (chiite, kurde et sunnite), on commence à descendre au niveau du... CANTON !

(notamment dans les parties comme au centre, je crois, où les groupes sont mêlés).

Mais je comprends toujours pas bien la position de Sadr qui normalement n'est pas un Sunnite mais un.... Chiite, non ?

ou alors, il y aurait ... les Juifs !

"That Iraq is divided into cantons is what the Jews and our enemies want"

"Sunnis are fearful the creation of federally-autonomous zones will prevent them taking an equal share of the Iraq's lucrative oil reserves, predominantly located in the country's Kurdish north and Shiite south."

"On Thursday, leading Shiite politician Abdel-Aziz al-Hakim called for autonomy in Shiite areas of south and CENTRAL Iraq."

"Iraq will be officially called "Federal Republic of Iraq," and the peshmerga will be considered a security force for the Kurdish-controlled zone of northern Iraq."

Sunnis warn Shiite autonomy will divide Iraq
The Daily Star staff
Saturday, August 13, 2005

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=17607#

Mais cette vague d'encre, cette inondation, sur cette Constitution va finir par toucher le Coran car après les Cantons ce sont les humains majoritairement musulmans et dont le concept de Laïcité est inconnu ni même prononçable en arabe. On devrait envoyer " ajm " en Irak pour leur soumettre l'Idée d'une Réforme du Livre, de la Pensée Arabe pour donner une chance à cette Constitution qui semble figée sur des points que personne n'ose nommer. Sa crédibilité en dépend pour la majorité des Iraquiens et agace W Bush qui charge les Sunnites mais la réalité est tout autre, elle est Arabo-Musulmane. A ceux qui désireraient connaître les points non nommés, envoyez un E-Mail à " http://www.ajm.ch ", je suis persuadé qu'il sera enchanté de vous les soumettre ;-)

L'existence d'une conception des droits de l'homme propre aux états musulmans

http://memoireonline.free.fr/memoirepeggy.html

Irak : le comité de rédaction parvient à un projet " final " de Constitution

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3218,36-683254@51-627391,0.html

La Constitution d'Irak " prête " pour le référendum d'octobre

http://fr.news.yahoo.com/050828/202/4k2rp.html

Le mensonge : expression des vérités

http://www.psychopsy.com/changer/mensonge.html