Just a few days ago, the Speaker of the Iraqi Parliament said that "the plan to partition the country into three autonomous regions [was] politically dead;" adding another twist to the complex question of what the final Iraqi Parliament will look like. However, that got me thinking, what would be a reasonable plan for Iraq to adopt? While pondering that question, I was reminded of our own Constitutional Convention and the raging battles between the representatives of the 'small' States and the 'large' States. Consider this: at the Constitutional Convention, those from heavily populated States, such as Virginia, wanted to elect National Representatives on the basis of population (as seen in the House of Representatives); an idea that would have given them much more influence. On the other hand, the less populous States, such as New Jersey, wanted a Legislature were each State had an equal amount of representation - thus giving them, proportionally, more power. In the end, a bicameral legislature, with one house based on equality and the other on representation, was adopted. With that in mind, I was able to come up with potential solutions for Iraq.
In Iraq, the legislative argument is between 3 main groups, the Shiites, the Sunnis, and the Kurds. Now, while this conflict, on the surface, appears to be more religious and ethnic in its nature, at its root lies the same problem that confronted the Founding Fathers. The Sunnis, who have the smallest population of the 3 groups, are like the small States, they're afraid the larger groups will be able to lord over them in a Parliament based on direct representation. Same goes for the Kurds; as the ethnic minority in the region they fear the same sort of 'tyranny by the majority' as the Sunnis do. The Shiites, on the other hand, would find it unfair to award the Sunnis and Kurds equal representation. They will clearly prefer direct representation, because it would give them the most power in such a Parliament. Therefore, as you can see, the Iraqi problem really is quite similar to the one faced by our Founding Fathers. Naturally, this means the solutions to the two could be very similar too.
So how do we go about creating a similar solution for Iraq? Well, for starters, we create a bicameral Legislature, just like we did in the United States. One branch of this Legislature, akin to our House of Representatives, will consist simply of directly elected men and women. Every X number of people will get a Representative, and religious affiliation or ethnicity will have no effect on this body. The new twist to the Iraqi Parliament can be found in the equality-based body, which, logically, will have similarities to our Senate. In this Iraqi 'Senate' however, you will need equal representation for only the 3 groups, instead of each State. In other words, in the 'Senate,' the Kurds get to elect 10 members, the Sunnis get to elect 10 members, and the Shiites get to elect 10 members. (10, of course, being an arbitrary number used only for the purpose of example.)
Nonetheless, the fact that only 3 groups would be in the Iraqi 'Senate' produces a serious problem, one not faced by our Founders, who had 13 'groups' involved. Obviously, if a simple majority is required to pass a law, 2 groups can easily team up against the other and face no legal opposition. Two possible solutions to this problem are: a) to give each group a veto or, b) require a minimum of 21 votes for certain laws to pass. (Such as laws concerning the exportation of oil.) Indeed, the more I think about it, this problem seems to be the biggest potential flaw in my scheme.
Another potential problem with this system is the fact that Iraq, unlike the United States, has a Parliamentary government; which means that the Chief Executive (the Prime Minister) has to be elected by the Legislature, as opposed to by the Electoral College. To us, it seems obvious that the PM should be elected by the 'lower,' representative body; but I doubt the Sunnis would accept such as system. Thus, selection of the Prime Minister might have to go like this:
The Representative body votes for the PM and the votes are tallied. Then each delegation in the 'Senate' is allowed to cast its vote for PM, and its votes are added onto the totals from the Representative body. However, the value of the Kurd, Shiite, and Sunni votes in the 'Senate' count as (X/4) number of votes - with X being the total number of representatives in the 'Lower' body of the Parliament. In other words the 'Senate' gets to participate in the Prime Minister's election in an effort to make the system more Federal in its nature. While the 'Senate's' total number of votes is fewer, their votes carry more individual weight. It sounds a bit confusing, I know. Yet, here may be an opportunity for our British and Australian Allies to step in, as they have more experience in selecting Prime Ministers than we Americans do.
Would the above work? Probably not exactly the way I thought of it; however, it seems that some slight variation on this formula may be the answer for Iraq. Furthermore, it seems clear to me that studying our own Constitutional Convention will prove a useful tool for the founding fathers of Iraq. Finally, as we witness the process of Parliamentary construction in Iraq, let us remember James Madison's observation that "there are objections against every mode [of government] that has been, or perhaps can be proposed." He would know.