IRAQ: A written document, no matter how ingenious, cannot answer questions that Iraqis are unable to answer themselves, writes Rory Carroll in Baghdad
From the swirl of political drama in Baghdad last night one stark fact emerged: the new constitution, whenever it emerges, will not settle the question of what is Iraq.
Even if a draft had been agreed before the midnight deadline, the document would still only mark another stage, not the end, of the answer to that question.
The country is too fluid, and too much is at stake, for the losers to accept the draft as the final word. Even those who think they emerge as winners are likely to view the constitution as one more round in an ongoing contest. Is Iraq a strong, centralised state keen to revive its role as an Arab champion? Is it another Yugoslavia, a cauldron of ethnic and religious tensions destined for civil war? Is it a western-oriented democracy heralding reform in the Middle East? Is it a failed experiment on the road to autocracy and theocracy?
The draft constitution cannot answer these questions because Iraqis themselves are unable to. What it does give is a snapshot of the current balance of power between Kurds, Shias and Arab Sunnis.
They agree on many things. Iraq is to be a parliamentary democracy in which the prime minister is the most powerful figure in government, deferring nominally to the ceremonial president. The judiciary is to be independent of the executive and legislature. The country is to be named simply the Republic of Iraq, Kurds having dropped their insistence on "federal" in the title, Shias their insistence on Islamic and Sunnis their insistence on Arab.
Given Iraq's history, consensus on these points is remarkable. Carved from the ruins of the Ottoman empire by the British after the first World War, it was never an obvious entity from the start. Kurds in the north loathed the Arabs, and the feeling was mutual, while the Shias and Sunni Arabs were sectarian rivals.
Saddam Hussein's 23-year rule consolidated the Sunnis, about a fifth of the population, as overlords, and deepened divisions, not least by murderous persecution of Kurds and Shias. The US-led invasion dissolved his regime and the country's dictatorial glue, yet two years later leaders of the three main groups have agreed the architecture of a parliamentary democracy, a feat some analysts thought impossible.
But yesterday's 11th hour haggling exposed deep fault lines on the fundamental issues of federalism and the role of Islam. Paradoxically Kurds took a backseat in the federal dispute. The no-fly zone imposed by the US and Britain over the north after the 1991 Gulf War gave them time and space to create a semi-autonomous state. Retaining that status was a fait accompli. Instead Kurds focused on extending their region to include the oil-rich city of Kirkuk, also claimed by Arabs and Turkomans. The potential spark to civil war, leaked versions of the draft showed negotiators could not agree so they fudged and deferred a decision.
Kirkuk is widely seen as a stepping stone to Kurdish secession and potential civil war. Arguably it was wise to kick for touch at this point but an explosive issue integral to Iraq's future will continue to fester. Similarly, powerful Shias want autonomy for the south, an oil-rich fiefdom which would leave Sunnis marooned in the centre with little but sand, insurgents and the fear that the country will disintegrate.
Again, leaked versions of the drafts suggest this issue will be fudged to appease Sunnis. Religious conservatives, including the prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, said the draft will make Islam a source of law, rather than the sole source, and respect the rights of women and religious minorities.
Not good enough, say liberals and moderates, who predict the real battle between secular and religious Iraq will begin after a constitution is in place when Muslim clerics and tribes try to exploit an opening to substitute civil law with sharia.
The nature of Iraq will be ultimately determined on the ground, not on a piece of paper.