There is much debate inside Iraq and out about federalism these days. Early Americans had a debate too. The anti-federalists lost by a narrow margin. The Volokh Conspiracy has an interesting post about federalism in Iraq.
Critics of decentralized federalism often claim that it will lead to partition. Some, like Cordesman in his NY Times piece, do not even seem to distinguish between the two. It is in fact the fear of a dominant central government dominated by one’s enemies that leads to pressure for partition. Implementation of a strong form of federalism would dampen these fears, though probably not completely eliminate them. Realistically, the Kurds will not accept a highly centralized government of any kind (and I don’t blame them). The Sunnis will not accept one dominated by the Shia, as is likely to be case if the government continues to be democratically elected (the Shiites are 60% of the population). By removing the threat of nation-wide domination by one group, decentralized federalism will reduce pressures for partition rather than increase it. This is especially likely in light of the fact that partition would leave all three major Iraqi groups vulnerable to the depradations of Iraq’s unscrupulous and rapacious neighbors. Federalism is a way to capture the main benefits of partition, while mitigating its dangers.
Decentralized federalism may indeed work for Iraq, if Iraq can field a few relatively honest politicians who care more about Iraq than they do about power, wealth and their own personal agendas. These politicians would need to survive long enough to lead Iraq into a state of reality it hasn’t yet achieved – one where individual freedom is a widely held ideal that is protected by the law. Whether or not that is possible remains to be seen.
The U.S. version of federalism has experienced a great deal of mission creep since the Constitution was first implemented. Our Congress largely ignores the limits that were put in place to restrain the growth of federal governance. Iraq must create a system of governance that gives the majority of citizens the sense that they are a stakeholder in Iraq to succeed.
In Iraq, the Sunnis were on top under Saddam, and they abused the Kurds and Shiites. Shiites make up 60% of the population and are now the dominant political force in Iraq, although Sunnis dominate Islam worldwide. Kurds are distrustful of Arabs in general because of the abuse they have suffered at their hands. They want autonomy and will not accept a strong centralized federal government dictating terms to them. Everyone wants the oil, but it is mostly in Shia and Kurdish dominated areas.
It is interesting to watch as these three groups try to build their own uniquely Iraqi brand of federalism. As I’ve said here before, if the new government cannot sell the ideas of nationalism and the need for unity over sectarianism, Iraq is destined for more turmoil, more upheaval and more of the type of warfare that is making its people sad and soul weary. Hope lies in finding a system of governance that can put the past into the past and that focuses on building infrastructure, protecting citizens’ individual human rights and long-term economic development in a free market environment where basic security is not a major issue for the majority of citizens.
No matter the eventual form of government, if Iraq fails, America will be blamed. And we should be if that happens. It’s up to us to follow through and help Iraqis build the new and improved nation our President has been promising everyone.