Flittering through the blogosphere, well the Israeli blogosphere anyway you come across the same old arguments all the time. And fashions in arguments.
The newest trendy one is the “One State” crowd, who list all of the horrible things about Israel – the State – and that it must be immediately disbanded and one state formed that includes Israeli Jews, Israeli Arabs, Palestinians in the OC and anyone around the world who self identifies as a Palestinian refugee, where they will all live together in a perfect state of harmony and justice. Just the act of creating this mega state will fix everything.
I’ll stop myself from ranting endlessly at the unmitigated gall of someone to declare that citizens of another sovereign state MUST do anything. I will restrain from stating that the exact same people will call the US arrogant for interfering in Iraq, or Israel arrogant for interfering in internal Palestinian politics (which I would agree with) but show a complete lack of self awareness when making identical arrogant declarations concerning Israeli internal affairs.
I’ll just gently remind them that Iraqis needed to save themselves from Saddam, that the Palestinians need to work out who exactly they are and that Israel is a work in progress.
…
Anyhoo one of the things brought up is that Israel does not have a constitution and it struck me that the constitution in this case is seen as some magic document that makes everything OK. Have a constitution and all will be well, people will be equal and peace will reign. Is that so? Does the lack of a constitution automatically mean that a country is decrepit, corrupt and abusive to its people?
Well, firstly Israel does not have a CODIFIED constitution. It does however have an UNCODIFIED constitution, brought about by the gradual evolution of laws (and starting with Israels initial declaration of independance). The United Kingdom and New Zealand are exactly the same, so Israel is not unique in the world and the other two countries are hardly despotic regimes.
Secondly, constitutions are really documents stating what the country is, what it believes in and what it will do for its people. The contents of some constitutions are fascinating.
Saudi Arabias constitution has the following:
Article 1:
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a sovereign Arab Islamic state with Islam as its religion; God’s Book and the Sunnah of His Prophet, God’s prayers and peace be upon him, are its constitution, Arabic is its language and Riyadh is its capital.Article 5:
a. The system of government in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is that of a monarchy.Article 8: Government Principles
Government in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is based on the premise of justice, consultation, and equality in accordance with the Islamic Shari’ah.Article 26: Human Rights
The state protects human rights in accordance with the Islamic Shari’ah.Article 45:
The source of the deliverance of fatwa in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are God’s Book and the Sunnah of His Messenger. The law will define the composition of the senior ulema body, the administration of scientific research, deliverance of fatwa and it’s (the body of senior ulema’s) functions.Article 46:
The judiciary is an independent authority. There is no control over judges in the dispensation of their judgements except in the case of the Islamic Shari’ah.
So Saudi Arabia has a constitution that says that the Royal Family and religious institutions can pretty much do whatever they want.
Ireland puts religion first:
In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,
And in Thailand it is good to be the King:
Chapter II
The King
Section 8
The King shall be enthroned in a position of revered worship and shall not be violated. No person shall expose the King to any sort of accusation or action.
Section 9
The King is a Buddhist and Upholder of religions.
Section 10
The King holds the position of Head of the Thai Armed Forces.
Section 11
The King has the prerogative to create titles and confer decorations.
Of course, a constitution is of no use without separation of powers – without a government to adhere to the law and an independant judiciary to hold them to it.
China is proud to say:
Article 35
Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession, and of demonstration.
Article 36: Religion
1. Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief.”
Think Tianamen, the Falun Gong and Christians.
Much like the freedom of press offered in Russia which has been happily murdering journalists for years.
And of course we have systems which just ignore inconvenient bits of their constitutions when it feels like it.
Look at the United States – a wonderful document, all men created equal, happiness for all. This is a country which treated the indigenous population of acquired territory as an inconvenience, didn’t give women the vote until relatively recently and declared people of color to be household property. In fact just recently, habeus corpus, the right to see the evidence against the accused and the right to a trial, a concept enshrined in the Magna Carta in 1215 and in the US constitution, the foundation of democracy were summarily put aside.
Never mind. I saved the best for last. Sudan has a wonderful constitution, beautifully worded. I especially like its section on human rights:
20: Freedom and sanctity of life
Every human being shall have the right to life, freedom, safety of person and dignity of honour save by right in accordance with the law; and he is free of subjection to slavery, forced labour, humiliation or torture.21: Right to equality
All people are equal before the courts of law. Sudanese are and duties as regards to functions of public life; and there shall be no discrimination only by reason of race, sex or religious creed . They are equal in eligibility for public posts and offices not being discriminated on the basis of wealth.22: Sanctity of nationality
Every person born to a Sudanese mother or father shall have a non-alienable right to enjoy the country’s nationality and its rights and bear its obligations. Whoever is brought up or is resident; in the Sudan for several years shall have the right to nationality as regulated by law.23: Freedom and right of movement
Every citizen shall have the right of freedom of movement, residence in, exit from and entry into the country; and his freedom shall not be restricted save under safeguards of the law.24: Freedom of creed and worship
Every human being shall have the right of freedom of conscience and religious creed and he shall have the right to declare his religion or creed, and manifest the same by way of worship, education, practice or performance of rites or ceremonies ; and no one shall be coerced to adopt such faith, as he does not believe in, nor to practice rites or services he does not voluntarily consent to ; and that is without prejudice to the right of choice of religion, injury to the feelings of others, or to public order, all as may be regulated by law.25: Freedom of thought and expression
There shall be guaranteed for citizens the freedom of pursuing any science or adopting any doctrine of opinion or thought without coercion by authority; and there shall be guaranteed the freedom of expression, reception of information publication and the press without prejudice security, order, safety and public morals, all as regulated by law.26: Freedom of association and organization
1. Citizens shall have the right of association-and organization for cultural social, economic, professional or trade union purposes without restriction save in accordance with the law.2. There shall be guaranteed for citizens the right to organize political association ; and shall not be restricted save by the condition of consultative decision making and democracy in the leadership of the organization , and use of propagation not material force in competition and abiding by the fundamentals of the Constitution, that as regulated by law.
27: Sanctity of cultural communities
There shall be guaranteed for every community or group of citizens the right to preserve their particular culture, language or religion, and rear children freely within the framework of their particularity, and the same shall not by coercion be effaced.28: Sanctity of earning and property
(1) Every person shall have his right to acquire property and knowledge, and shall enjoy the privacy of his earning and there shall be no expropriation of whatever he has gained of livelihood property, land, invention, or manual scientific, literary or artistic production save by such law as may charge him with the tax of contribution for public need or public interest in consideration of just compensation. No taxes, fees or other fiscal dues .shall be levied save by law.
Don’t you think the people of Darfur are happy to have these kind of protections?
A constitution? A great thing. But without a willing government, without an independant judiciary, absolutely worthless.
Could Israel use a codified constitution? Probably, I’d like to see one, I’d certainly like to be part of the debate to ensure that it offers equality and a solid base of laws. However in the meantime Israel has a solid judiciary, minorities can and have taken the government to court when they feel let down by the law, and they have won, setting precedents that can stand for many years to come. And that is more important than a
codified piece of paper.
So don’t give me that crap about Israel doesn’t have a constitution and therefore is the root of all evil.
Details of each countries constitution can be found here.
Spectacular post!
Comment by PP — July 19, 2007 @ 8:21 am
Lisoosh, you are correct about the UK and New Zealand. And I like your characterization of Israel as a work in progress. But I would suggest that the United States is also a work in progress and has been since the First Continental Congress in 1774. The constitution is also a work in progress — we didn’t hit the ground running everything smoothly.
Indigenous peoples are no longer killed by agents of the government or their land taken. Slavery was abolished when the republic wasn’t even 75 years old. Interestingly, the indigenous tribes of what became Western Canada and the Pacific Northwest were taking slaves at the same time. And yes, it wasn’t quite 100 years ago that women won the right to vote. Do women, Native Americans and African Americans walk on an even playing field? Pretty much, yes, but not quite.
Democracy is messy, and it evolves when there is a strong constitution like the US constitution. There are key ingredients that ensure its survival and continued evolution – freedom of speech and of the press and of religion, constraints on the power of government to abuse the people and their guests from other countries, separation of powers in government, a government that is answerable to the people, and a military that answers to civilian authority. The genius is not in any one of these provisions but in all the principles of law taken together. That is probably why it is the oldest constitution in the world.
Habeus corpus and due process were not summarily set aside. Our legal system couldn’t function without them. I suppose you are referring to the prisoners at Guantanimo. But that isn’t the fault of the constitution. It’s the result of an abuse of discretion by shameful morons in power whose transgressions haven’t quite reached the high crimes and misdemeanors warranting impeachment. But it points to how a democracy remains messy and still evolves — the supreme court has ordered the Bush administration to get with congress and get the mess fixed — and that is a result of the constitution. When we started this government in 1789 we didn’t even have a supreme court. An “unwilling government” under this constitution will not long prevail.
Italians, Swedes, the Irish and other immigrants were abused and discriminated against a hundred years ago and more. Not anymore. Not long ago handicapped children did not have a guaranteed right to attend school. That was fixed in 1975 through the application of the 14th amendment to the constitution.
Yes it is a “magic” document that makes everything ok — it just doesn’t make everything perfect. I don’t think it appropriate to place the US Constitution in the same context as the blatant abuses of the constitutions of Sudan or Saudi Arabia, or China.
By the way, the proposition “that all men are created equal” is from the Declaration of Independence from Britain, not from the constitution.
This was a good post. I am delighted that you have joined the blogosphere. I have always been impressed by your cogent comments to other blogs
Dan C.
Comment by Sage — July 23, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
Dan, thank you so much for your encouragement and your long and thoughtfull post.
You are right of course that the US is still a work in progress too, in fact it can probably be said about any other country in the world as they are constantly changing and evolving. And also right that I quoted from the Declaration of Independance instead of the Constitution, I was so intrigued by the other constitutions I came across I neglected to reread the US one.
I think it is probably reasonable to start by defining a “good” country – which for the sake of this discussion would be a nation that offers and protects the basic human rights of its citizens (what those are is a whole other issue).
While I think that a constitution is an important part of that, it is not the only part (which is why I describe it as not being “magic” by its very existence.
My perspective is that several foundations are required – a majority of the population willing to understand and fight for its rights, a willing elected government, an independant judiciary enforcing rule of law, a constitution and enough separation of powers for it all to work.
The debacle in Iraq strikes me as a perfect example of how all of the building blocks of the foundation are requried. Iraq has a constitution and votes, but the population still has a large percentage unwilling to accept rule of law, or a securely independant judiciary, or an entirely willing government. A constitution is a solid basis for law and order though and as such is incredibly important, I won’t say it isn’t.
The basis for comparisons between the US, or Israel, or the UK and countries such as China, Sudan or Saudi Arabia is that the latter countries don’t have the other building blocks that the former do. As such, the constitutions are important, but part of a larger picture.
Comment by lisoosh — July 25, 2007 @ 12:54 pm