I heard on NPR this morning that the Iraqi Governing Council had come to an agreement on The Fundamental Law. Last I heard they were all still bickering, so the news came as something of a surprise. This bit from Juan Cole shed some light on things:
The Fundamental Law was apparently drafted from notes of Paul Bremer by Salim Chalabi and others (son of corrupt financier Ahmad Chalabi)--according to a Feb. 29 LA Times op-ed by Brendan O'Leary.. Its final form was negotiated by the IGC, but there was much dissension on the role of Islam, federalism, women's rights, etc. Why has this dissension been overcome? Not because there is a genuine political compromise. Because not reaching a deal on this temporary law would manifestly delay the return of sovereignty to the Iraqis on June 30. No one on the IGC wants the Coalition Provisional Authority to be in power a second longer than necessary. So why should they risk a delay by making an obstinate stand on a law that will anyway be revised a year from now?Posted by Jason at March 1, 2004 08:56 AMWhat has happened is merely that the big fights have been postponed for the constitutional convention next year. At that point there will be no reason to compromise, no urgency, and there will be every reason to poison the well for ideologues who don't get their way.