My latest column for TCS, on the Iraqi constitution:
In an age where conservatives are convinced that liberal judges in America have created a dictatorship in which they interpret the Constitution to mean anything they very well please, what hope can there be for the Iraqis? If America has been cursed with a “Living Constitution” — one the meaning of which changes as society evolves — Iraq seems doomed to endure a “Mutating Constitution,” which will need to change, not just in its interpretation but in its contents, to keep up with the country’s emerging political culture.
And perhaps that is for the best. Would we really want a constitution set in stone this early in Iraq’s newly liberated life? Would any document so rigid long survive?
So, there is ambiguity.
And a little ambiguity never hurt… or, well, it’s better than the alternative.
Ryan,
I won’t object for long to your use of the word “savior” to describe Abraham Lincoln; what I’m more concerned with is the odd juxtaposition of the Hayek reference in your article and the constructivist rationalism (Hayek’s enemy, remember?) expressed in it.
You write that “Any government promising democracy, promising religious freedom, promising freedom of the press and promising freedom of political organization deserves the benefit of the doubt for now.”
But of course, if Hayek is right, no government who promises to radically alter the social morays of a society should be given the benefit of the doubt - not because it’s *mean* but because they simply don’t have the power to do it. You name your article the Iraqi Constitution of Liberty, ostensibly a reference to Hayek, without even thinking to address the mildest Hayekian objection to the “rebuilding of Iraq”.
Why is this? I think I can speculate; it’s because many of those who like to claim Hayek’s name only do so for sport, and instead of studying him support policies that a principled Hayekian (perhaps that is a rough concept) would be wise enough to either oppose or at least remain neutral on. Governments simply do not have the knowledge or power to do much but to at best reflect and at worst destroy a social order. This is why the entire neoconservative project to democratize Iraq was an illconceived attempt at central planning from the very start. It took the West literally centuries to develop a stable rule of law, and while the history of Iraq has often seen societies that approximate this, the constant regime changes imposed on it or supported by the West are making any continuity of development nothing short of impossible.
I see no reason to hope, if that hope is based on the supposed noble intentions claimed by a few politicians in the US and Iraq, and a few pundits on the internet. I seriously doubt that Hayek wouldn’t trust any of you; why should I?