  Afghanistan's Loya Jirga has crunched out a constitution, officially creating the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. I suppose it's a step in the right direction, but I can't say I have a lot of faith in the long-term success of this particular document. I found a copy of [a href="http://www.swisspeace.org/uploads/ACSF/GeneralDocuments/final%20new%20constitution.pdf"]Afghanistan's Constitution[/a] and read it a couple times. It really is an interesting document. It struggles to achieve admirable goals considering the current infrastructural situation in Afghanistan. It attempts to find a middle ground between Islamic law and Western legal principles. It has adopted structures from European democracies and from America. I think the document is a true effort by the people of Afghanistan to form a functional democracy. It's too bad it won't work. The most glaring problem in the document is that it is ultimately subject to Islamic law. The 3rd article says that "In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.
" Article 149 says that "The provisions of adherence to the fundamentals of the sacred religion of Islam and the regime of the Islamic Republic cannot be amended. " Furthermore, only Muslims are electable as presidents. So, they have a constitution that theoretically creates a democracy but still rests upon the tenets of Islam.
Sustainable? Another problem stems from European influences. The very first section of the Afghanistan Constitution which outlines the right guaranteed to the citizens and the responsibilities of the State says that "The State shall abide by the UN charter, international treaties, international conventions that Afghanistan has signed and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. " Sounds like a recipe for European and UN meddling if you ask me. In addition, excepting elections and potential referenda, Afghanis are pretty much precluded from the operation of the government. The situation is that the people of Afghanistan are allowed certain rights, and the wise and powerful among them will take care of everything else.
Again, sounds very European to me. Probably most problematic is the proportional elective body. In tribal Afghanistan, the warlords will not be happy taking second place to the larger ethnic groups. The Afghanis modelled the general structure of their government on the U.S. with an executive branch, a judicial branch, and a legislative branch made of two houses. The House of the People, Wolesi Jirga which is elected, has a good bit more influence than the House of Elders, or Meshrano Jirga which is a combination of 2/3 members elected by councils and 1/3 members appointed by the president. The system has checks and balances in place, but it also can clearly be abused in such a way that a given majority will be able to run roughshod over the remaining representatives.
I think the document is gravely flawed. However, I think it does show some dedication on the part of Afghanis to pursue a more cooperative and peaceful form of government. It is encouraging. Unfortunately, there are other considerations beyond the structure of their constitution. Afghanistan is practically lawless at this point. Only the presence of international forces is keeping the lid on this pot of boiling water. Once the U.S. is finished wiping out Al'Qaeda and the Taliban our service men will leave the country and Afghanistan will most likely revert to anarchy. The central Afghan armed forces is around 10,000 strong. There are individual warlords with greater military strength. There is no mechanism available to enforce the provisions of the constitution. How can a government persist without presenting even the possibility of a threat of force? 
