Why con­sti­tu­tion prob­lem, who will de­cide?

The Kurdish Globe - - NATIONAL - By Gazi Has­san

Kur­dis­tan is not an in­de­pen­dent state, but it has a fed­eral gov­ern­ment which is in­de­pen­dent in its po­lit­i­cal, eco­nom­i­cal and law­mak­ing de­ci­sion. Kur­dis­tan has a pres­i­dent and a par­lia­ment which work in a le­gal and con­sti­tu­tional man­ner. But it's still not an in­de­pen­dent en­tity in or­der to par­tic­i­pate in de­ci­sions of in­ter­na­tional and de­vel­oped demo­cratic com­mu­nity legally and con­sti­tu­tion­ally, or to be con­sid­ered as a rec­og­nized en­tity in UN.

Kur­dis­tan has a con­sti­tu­tion draft which has been dis­cussed in the par­lia­ment since 2005. Sev­eral years ago, the par­lia­ment passed Kur­dis­tan Re­gion Con­sti­tu­tion bill, the only thing left is to hold a ref­er­en­dum over it. Since then, po­lit­i­cal talks even be­tween par­ties ex­ists re­gard­ing this draft.

What's worth men­tion­ing is, those who were against elect­ing the Pres­i­dent in the par­lia­ment and some other mat­ters, they wanted peo­ple to elect the Re­gion Pres­i­dent di­rectly. But now as power bal­ance and po­lit­i­cal stances have changed and some ex­ter­nal sides emerge to in­ter­fere in im­por­tant and strate­gic is­sues of Kur­dis­tan. One of the mat­ters is the de­ci­sion about the con­sti­tu­tion of the Re­gion, which is a strate­gic is­sue in defin­ing Re­gion's po­si­tion in the fu­ture in terms of po­lit­i­cal and in­ter­na­tional re­la­tions, defin­ing ge­o­graphic bor­ders, pro­duc­tion and econ­omy of Kur­dis­tan, cul­ture and co­ex­is­tence of Kur­dis­tan's com­po­nent. Th­ese par­ties were against solv­ing the prob­lem in­side par­lia­ment in the past, they now turned to say 'No, the is­sues must be solved in­side par­lia­ment by bal­ance and po­lit­i­cal agree­ments'. What mainly con­cerns pub­lic opin­ion is that when con­sti­tu­tional mat­ters are af­fected by tem­pers, ide­o­log­i­cal re­ac­tions and nar­row in­ter­ests, na­tional di­men­sions will be weak­ened and dis­trusted.

This is an im­por­tant demo­cratic mat­ter, be­cause the main part of a ref­er­en­dum is to give chance to peo­ple with all com­po­nents to use their po­lit­i­cal par­tic­i­pa­tion and rights in such an im­por­tant de­ci­sion like ref­er­en­dum over the con­sti­tu­tion draft.

In Kur­dis­tan there is a group who will not par­tic­i­pate in ref­er­en­dum, and there are ones that haven't yet made their minds whether par­tic­i­pate of give white cards. There is another group whose de­ci­sion is re­lated to the de­ci­sion and opin­ions of other po­lit­i­cal par­ties, they prob­a­bly change their mind a short time be­fore the ref­er­en­dum, and par­tic­i­pate in the ref­er­en­dum whether pos­i­tively or neg­a­tively.

The ref­er­en­dum over the con­sti­tu­tion is re­lated to de­ter­mi­na­tion and des­tiny of the coun­try, and tight­en­ing con­sti­tu­tional, le­gal, po­lit­i­cal, demo­cratic po­si­tions and hu­man rights in Kur­dis­tan Re­gion. And the prob­lem is that th­ese mat­ters are about to be min­i­mized as the re­sult of show­ing the dis­putes greater that what they are, and as the re­sult of the cur­rent po­lit­i­cal view­points and close-mind­ed­ness of some par­ties in their po­lit­i­cal viewpoint. There is a group who wants to re­strict the mat­ter to the be­lief that the con­sti­tu­tion is writ­ten for one per­son.

I think con­sti­tu­tion as na­tional prin­ci­ple should not be mixed with some opin­ions, in­ter­ests and short re­ac­tions. The ref­er­en­dum over Kur­dis­tan Re­gion Con­sti­tu­tion is re­lated to for­ma­tion of a con­sti­tu­tional en­tity and a civil so­ci­ety, gov­ern­ment, other com­po­nents such as Re­gion Pres­i­dency and the Par­lia­ment. This mat­ter should not be re­stricted to elec­tion of Kur­dis­tan Re­gion Pres­i­dent, be­cause any­one be­came the fu­ture pres­i­dent of Kur­dis­tan Re­gion, if he didn't work for form­ing a state, an en­tity and an eco­nomic, psy­cho­log­i­cal, cul­tural and so­cial sit­u­a­tion, or didn't have bet­ter agen­das than what now ex­ists, then his­tory would blame him. If the pres­i­dent, who is now in of­fice, does not make a ground for peo­ple to par­tic­i­pate in a trans­par­ent, demo­cratic and re­spected way in the ref­er­en­dum over the con­sti­tu­tion, he will be crit­i­cized.

The con­sti­tu­tion should also make the above men­tioned a prin­ci­ple for par­tic­i­pat­ing peo­ple in de­ci­sions re­gard­ing strate­gic and im­por­tant is­sues. So when we want to strengthen ba­sic prin­ci­ples of a civil and demo­cratic so­ci­ety, we should go back to peo­ple's opin­ion. For re­spect­ing and im­ple­ment­ing the hopes that peo­ple will vote for, let peo­ple de­cide, and po­lit­i­cal par­ties make pol­i­tics. That's why peo­ple's choice of defin­ing their de­ter­mi­na­tion and giv­ing chance to them to par­tic­i­pate in im­por­tant de­ci­sion is a suit­able thing, and will tighten demo­cratic po­si­tion, not vice versa. The one who is fight­ing for peo­ple should make op­por­tu­nity to peo­ple, not hin­der them us­ing their rights.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Iraq

© PressReader. All rights reserved.