Watching Iraqis debate and disagree on the country’s draft constitution is watching democracy at work. And it’s heartening to see. The proposed constitution might not be a distillation of the great Mesopotamian constitutionalist, James Madison, or even the best the current generation of Iraqis can do. Even the Miracle at Philadelphia produced a document that lacked the Bill of Rights. All the more important will be the debate that will take place in Iraq between now and the October 15 referendum.

President Bush described the drafters as “an inspiration” and said, “This is a document of which the Iraqis and the rest of the world can be proud.” He commended it for containing “far-reaching protections for fundamental human freedoms, including religion, assembly, conscience and expression.” We haven’t heard such an upbeat report from Mr. Bush – or so much sneering from his detractors – since just before the Iraqis went to the polls to vote and returned to inspire the world with their purple-stained fingers.

Most Shiite and Kurdish leaders have commended the constitution to their people. An Iraqi for whom we have much respect, and whose piece appears on this page, Nibras Kazimi, disagrees. He writes that he will vote against the constitution. Patrick Henry opposed ratification of the American Constitution. Mr. Kazimi asserts, as do others, that the constitution’s articles stating that “No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam” and that “No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy” are contradictory and an invitation for Islamic law to rule Iraq. He therefore recommends Iraq starts a new constitutional process.

Other critics warn of another problem in the constitution – that the articles promising Iraqis such rights as freedom of expression and assembly are preceded by the qualification “as long as it does not violate public order and morality.” A vague statement that is open to many interpretations and undemocratic abuses.

A number of leaders of Iraq’s Sunni community oppose the federal system the constitution proposes. They say it portends the eventual breakup of Iraq and will thereby deprive them of the country’s oil wealth buried in the Shiite south and Kurdish north. The rejection of two-thirds of voters in any three of Iraq’s 18 provinces would defeat the constitution, and as Sunnis are believed to have large enough support in four of the provinces, they could derail the constitution.

Even if this draft is rejected, however, the Sunnis are unlikely to secure future versions that don’t provide for a federal state. After suffering decades of oppressive centralized rule from Baghdad the Shiites and Kurds are adamant on a federal system. They argue that the constitution enshrines Iraq as a unified state. There is the chance that many Sunnis will support it for these reasons. We will see in the coming weeks whether it was possible to negotiate in any way with Sunni Baathists, who desperately fear how free elections will expose their status as a minority and vanquish their prospects to return to minority rule.

The most impressive part of the constitution drafting and debate has been watching Iraqi leaders working out their differences through democratic debate. Shiites and Kurds, previously rival groups, worked together bridging differences to produce the draft. The editor of the Sun has for years promulgated the following truism – the size of the opposition runs directly proportional to the strength of the democracy. That was evident during the struggle for ratification of the American Constitution (the anti-federalists are still revered in many quarters).

In any event, rejection of the constitution that has been proposed for Iraq would not be the end of the road for Iraqi democracy. If in the coming referendum Iraqi voters decide the existing document would, as Mr. Kazimi warns, vest too much power in the clerics, new elections would take place and a new drafting process would start. No constitution can guarantee liberal democracy. Dictatorships have constitutions that promise to safeguard rights. A constitution drafted, debated, and approved by a country’s people is the best hope – whether it takes one, five, or 20 attempts.