At 11.23 p.m. on Monday night, Iraqi parliamentary delegates decided to postpone agreement on a new constitution for another week. Fundamental disagreement on three key issues — federalism, the role of Islam and women’s rights — seemed unresolvable to the Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni representatives.

Unied States diplomats and officials, who had put pressure on delegates to reach an agreement, tried to conceal their disappointment in the delay with a cloak of positive democratic hyperbole. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she was confident Iraq would “continue on a path to a permanent government by the end of the year.” President George W. Bush, agreed, noting that the Iraqis had made “substantial progress.” ~Der Spiegel

It is noteworthy that this was the first deadline that was largely the responsibility of the Iraqis themselves, and in a telling sign for the future they were incapable of agreeing among themselves. Unlike the ‘transfer of sovereignty’ or the elections, Washington could not force everyone to meet the deadline. Given their first task of self-government, the Iraqis have so far failed. This is not surprising, but what is strange is that anyone believed that there would be meaningful success.

As I thought about some of the problems of Iraq over the last few days, it occurred to me that there is virtually no post-colonial society that has made a virtually immediate success of self-government that has not at some point ultimately degenerated into civil war or dictatorship. One striking exception has been India, whose leaders learned and acquired the necessary skills, habits and institutions from the British over long years of tutelage and acculturation, however much they may still resent and deride the firanghis for their domination and abuses. Iraq has never enjoyed anything similar, and is not now enjoying anything remotely like that Indian experience. We can realistically expect that the failure to write a constitution on time will be but the first of many failures of self-government.