| Constitutionally, a Risky Business | |||
| 
         While some countries have succeeded, many others have been stymied by
        ethnic and religious hatreds, differences over power divisions and
        deeply rooted corruption or violence. Drafting a constitution is often the first step in transforming a
        country to democracy, but the questions seem to be endless. Parliament
        or president? Centralized or decentralized authority? Ethnic and
        religious power-sharing or majority rule? Who can vote? What is the
        scope of judicial review? Is there a right to housing and jobs? And who
        should answer these questions? This formidable task has produced a cottage industry of
        constitutional consultants. Experts in areas like conflict resolution,
        law, development and political science have taken on the tough
        nuts-and-bolts work of converting high-minded ideals and aspirations
        into workable laws, rules and institutions. If there is one conclusion that can be drawn from these experiences,
        it is that there is no one right way to do the job. "There is a fantasy that constitutional law is an appliance you
        plug in in New York and then plug in in Budapest or Baghdad," said
        Stephen Holmes, a professor of law at New York University Law School.
        Rather, he said, "provisions of a constitution interact with each
        other in unpredictable ways." he said Mr. Holmes directs that advice in particular to American scholars,
        who tend to dominate the constitution-advice business. Americans are
        often seduced by the mythology of their own constitution, the oldest
        written democratic constitution, as a document that can and should be
        reproduced around the world, he said. Bereket Habte Selassie, a professor of law and African studies at the
        University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, agrees. "In the
        1950's, Europeans summoned African leaders from 25 to 30 countries to
        capitals like London, Paris and Brussels and shoved constitutions down
        their throats," he said. "The leaders of those countries
        became autocrats," which he sees as evidence that imposing foreign
        models does not work. That doesn't mean outside advice and other models are useless, said
        Mr. Selassie, who helped draft the constitution for his native Eritrea,
        which was ratified in 1997. He is chairman of a group on constitutions
        at the United States Institute of Peace, a government-sponsored research
        group in Washington. The institute is examining about 140 cases of constitution writing
        and has begun to identify guidelines to reduce conflict and violence.
        They include having the incumbent head of state not succeed himself;
        waiting two or three years before a regular election; and creating a
        constitutional court to resolve differences of opinion about where
        authority lies, say in a tussle between a president and a prime
        minister. Mr. Selassie said an overriding principle in the process "is the
        participation of the people." He said, "The thing is to make
        them feel they own the constitution." Even illiterate citizens can
        listen to radios or attend meetings, he said. Many countries begin the process by identifying their biggest
        problems and then using the constitution to fix them. Cass R. Sunstein,
        a professor of political science and law at the University of Chicago,
        calls this approach countercultural. "The Americans were very alert to this," said Mr. Sunstein,
        who worked on the creation of constitutions in Poland, South Africa,
        Ukraine, Russia and Lithuania. "The Bill of Rights is just partly a
        set of recollections of what went wrong under the British." In South Africa one of the legacies of apartheid was mass poverty, so
        one of the important provisions of that constitution was the right to
        shelter. Many Eastern European countries, emerging from Communism,
        included language about freedom of contract and private property in
        their constitutions. Just this week, Rwanda, which was torn apart by genocidal attacks,
        ratified a multiparty, democratic constitution that has clauses on
        limiting ethnic and regional divisions and forbidding discrimination on
        the basis of ethnicity. It also reserved one-third of the parliament
        seats for women. While Mr. Sunstein contends that the best constitutions are
        countercultural, he adds that there has to be a balance between
        aspirations driven by recollections of oppression and things that can be
        enforced by law. Some drafters of the Ukraine constitution, for example,
        wanted a provision that would require the press to be objective, which
        Mr. Sunstein said would violate freedom of expression and be
        unenforceable. In Brazil, which has a history of military dictatorship and whimsical
        institutional leadership, the constitution is full of provisions that
        are not easily enforced (like protecting the jobs of pregnant women). But some scholars argue that is the price of creating constitutional
        legitimacy. Melanie Beth Oliviera, a social scientist, says of the
        constitution in Brazil, "Legal scholars will tell you that document
        is totally unwieldly, but people said, `I see my voice in this
        document.' " An open process also confers legitimacy, said Timothy D. Sisk, a
        professor of international studies at the University of Denver, but can
        slow the creation of a workable constitution. Secrecy allows for
        trade-offs and deals that are not politically palatable, Mr. Sisk said.
        "In South Africa they had over one million submissions about the
        different clauses and aspects of the constitution, from employers'
        ability to lock out employees to the rights of women and children,"
        Mr. Sisk said. The South Africans also struggled to balance majority prerogatives
        and minority rights. One of the most ferocious debates was over the
        right to be educated in the language of one's choice in a country that
        has 11 official languages, he said. In the end, the South Africans
        decided to allow all languages in the schools. "What do constitutions really do?" Mr. Sisk asked.
        "They set the rules for future interaction, so conflict can be
        negotiated and settled." The issues and conflicts that have cropped up in constitutions
        worldwide are clearly visible in Iraq. Scholars are already weighing in
        on how laws and institutions can reflect the principles of federalism,
        democracy, nonviolence, respect for minorities and a role for women.
        These were among 12 principles that emerged from a gathering of Iraqis
        in Ur in late April. This month the Public International Law and Policy Group and the
        Century Foundation, which provide policy analysis and legal services to
        countries in transition, prepared a 58-page report on establishing an
        Iraqi constitution. It included ideas about protecting minority and
        human rights, choosing a state structure and building an electoral
        system. Even with all the expert advice, "It's not going to be a bunch
        of academics giving them a constitution," said Paul R. Williams, a
        professor of law and international relations at American University, who
        worked on the report. "It's going to be the end product of a lot of
        political bargaining, a fierce political bargaining process." For all the difficulties, said Barnett R. Rubin, a political
        scientist who has been working on the Afghanistan Reconstruction
        Project, "Writing constitutions is easy compared to implementing
        them." | |||