Cairo, Egypt
Egyptian legislators are not wasting time, as they are already working on adapting the norms which regulate the country following the changes sanctioned by the popular referendum on 26th March. They are already at work and in the space of two weeks they could finish their work. This is hardly surprising really. Rather, one takes one’s hat off to it. If thirty-four amendments to the Constitution have been discussed by a parliamentary commission created ad hoc, envisioned by the high chamber, the Shura, voted for by the popular Assembly, the less important chamber, and subjected to a referendum, all of which in 83 days, it is not clear why the ‘legislatory’ ability of Egyptian ministers cannot inspire esteem and, moreover, make history.
The evil-minded say: what strength. It is easy to continue quickly when the political opposition is ‘kindly’ asked to sit in the corner and let things be, and the ‘drafts’ of all the changes come the elegant presidential palace, the Heliopolis, on the outskirts of Cairo. At the bottom of it all, thought, what importance do the changes have? What counts is that the Arabic Republic of Egypt progresses on the road towards Reform. The comment made by the American Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, during the press conference together with the Egyptian Foreign Minister, Abul Gheit, in Assuan on the eve of the referendum: “Therefore, yes, I have made clear (to President Mubarak, ndr) what my worries are, as well as my hopes regarding reform here in Egypt. The reform process is difficult. There will be highs and lows”.
I short, the Russian mountains. But the end justifies the means. “The aim of the 34 amendments – as Hosni Mubarak, almost 79, has stated and continues to state in his frequent messages to the public – is to develop the Egyptian lesiglative infrastructure and support economic, political and social reforms in the country”. A noble proposal, in line with the expectations of the allied United States and European interlocutors. And so reform there shall be. But which? The amendments which have just been approved can be divided into four groups and are a response to the political programme created by Mubarak himself in 2005, during the campaign for the Presidential elections: it consists of nine points presented to the nation as a real political platform to give impetus to the democratisation of the country.
Farewell to Nasserism
According to Egyptian constitutionalists, the first group includes a dozen articles, concentrated on the social nature of the Egyptian republic. The notions of socialism, socialist system, and socialist principles have been completely cancelled, considering the obvious opening to market economics which for years has characterised the country: now the Arabic Republic of Egypt is finding itself again: “Democratic state based on the principle of citizenship”. There is no more sign of the Nasserist past. An official shift towards capitalism, according to some observers of the political scene, due to the new generation of the National Democratic Party (Ndp), led by Gamal Mubarak, cadet son of the president. No longer military officials, but businessmen, educated in the best universities of economic in Europe and the United States, the ‘youth’ of the Ndp, the majority party for more than 25 years, are putting their foot down to accelerate the liberalisation and are pointing towards attracting ever more foreign capital.
The second group of amendments deal with the elections – presidential, legislative, administrative and referendum – and the criteria for the candidates’ eligibility to the parliament and the presidency. The most significant and criticised news, in this section, are: those who are not a member of a party will no longer be able to run. No independent candidates, only listed parties, constitute the ‘new’ Constitution (Article 62). “In practice – explains Ayman Okail, director of Maat, Centre for Juridical and constitutional studies in Cairo – a norm against the opposition, designed to block the road for the independent”. In the popular Assembly (Maglis Asshab), there are in fact 88 ministers of the Muslim Brotherhood, the main group in opposition to the regime, elected as independent until 2005. The Muslim Brothers are ‘tolerated’, but they are still an illegal movement in Egypt, not a real party. From now on there will be even more obstacles in front of their political activity. But especially, future popular consultations will no longer be supervised by judges, until now guarantors of the correctness of the vote: “Another independent and neutral commission will oversee the scrutiny” (Article 88).
The official explanation, published by bodies of the philo-government press, is not to overload the judges with excessive bureaucratic work. Also in this case, the opinion of political activists and human rights organisations is different: after the parliamentary scrutiny in November 2005, a large number of judges denounced rigging verifiable in their own field of expertise, entering in open conflict with the executive power. With a ‘modern’ version of article 88 this will no longer happen. A quick way to ‘redress the balance’ of the relations between the powers and the State.
The powers of the Pharaoh
The prerogatives of the president and other powers come under a third group. The presidency will continue to have the ability to dissolve Parliament, but will have to first consult the prime minister (Article 136). It is a shame that a popular referendum to ask the citizens if they agree with the decision to dissolve the Parliament is no longer mandatory, while the nomination of the prime minister and the revocation of his mandate remains in the hands of the ‘rais’. Furthermore, there is no opening to the figure of a vice-president, which Honi Mubarak never wanted in hi 26-year ‘reign’ and persists in not wanting to nominate. There is a new supreme council, still under the control of the presidency as well as the judiciary power, even if a ‘filter’ has been introduced, and is chaired by the president of the republic.
And here is the thorny subject of the separation of religion and the State. With a change to article 5, now “it is forbidden to conduct political activity or create political parties based on religion or on sexual and racial discrimination”. Measures aimed at putting in the loft the ambitions of the Muslim Brotherhood and definitely not at ‘laicising’ the Egyptian State. In fact, article 2 states: “Islam is the religion of the State, Arabic is its official language. The Sharia (Islamic law, ndr) is the main source of legislation”. In accordance with the new article 5, the hypothesis of also changing the 2nd was considered, eliminating the reference to the Sharia: no longer will it be impossible in the Egypt of 2007, the year in which the minister of Religious Affairs (Awqaf) and Al Azhar’s university mosque dictate the law on the citizens’ lives.
Next, the fourth group of constitutional amendments, in which the new article 179 stands out, that is to say that anti-terrorism which renders definitive the emergency laws in vigour in Egypt since the death of Anwar Sadat, in October ’81. Until today they have been renewed three times a year without fail, but the opposition hoped that sooner or later they would be revoked. Now, instead, “The head of State can defer whichever terrorist crime to whichever judiciary body quoted in the law and in the Constitution”, or the military tribunals. At the moment, there is no definition for the expression ‘terrorist crime’.
What has been happening in Egypt for 26 years, that is to say that a citizen can be arrested, detained without a time limit, tried in a martial court of law, in most cases without any legal assistance, is now officially used in strategies in the fight against terrorism. “One of Egypt’s main characteristics is social safety and the ability to supply safety to its sons and daughters – explained the minister Abul Gheit ad Assuan to the international press – This is the responsibility of the Egyptian state. And when the question is to do with terrorism, I have faith in the fact that Egyptian laws and the cadres of the Constitution can achieve their objective for security in this society, in circumstances which are truly difficult for the entire region”. And when the debate became heated in the past few weeks, both Gheit and Mubarak sent the accusers away to read Western anti-terrorism laws, daughters of the American Patriot Act.
The fear of the Americans
“We hoped that this reform would bring about positive change. Actually, the government does what it wants – says Ayman Okail, from the Maat study centre, with distinct disillusion – From ’81 to 2005 there had never been a proposal to have a discussion on the Constitution. Until recently, the Egyptian government had under strong pressure from abroad, so that it would be open to democracy. But after the election in 2005, with the Muslim Brothers’ victory (there has been one) we went backwards”. It is worth saying: if democracy means to pave the way for a political formation whose slogan is ‘Islam is the answer” – they must have been thinking about Washington – it is a dictatorship. Okail adds: “Before every time Condoleezza Rice visited Egypt she spoke of human rights, or Ayman Nour (ex-leader of the Al Ghad party, now in prison, ndr), elections, democracy. Now, silence”.
The Coptic Christians have abstained completely from the political debate, a minority which in Egypt represents around 10% of the population, according to government estimates, or rather 7-8 million citizens. Pope Shenouda III’s invite was to keep a low profile, to not enter the political arena. Then, at the last minute there was the invite to participate in the referendary vote. “Coptic Christians have an internal problem. Some feel Egyptian first of all, others only Christians. In every case they are almost always absent from parliament”, highlights the director of Maat. But more than in a confessional style, the stumbling block for the Egyptian society of today is political: “There is no opposition party which is strong and united. Every time there is someone promising, the regime strikes them down. At the moment no one can stand against the National Democratic Party”.
And in this way none of the proposals of the minority politics have been considered by the Ndp, which holds more than 70% of the seats in the popular Assembly. All 34 of the amendments were approved after not even two days of discussion, and the referendum was indoctrinated from one week to the next. The independent ministers who are at the head of the Brotherhood and those of the minor parties, being Al Wafd (The delegation), the Tagammu (Unionist Party) and Nasserian-inspired groups such as Al Karama (Pride) first boycotted the vote in the parliament and then that of the referendum. A choice supported by some politologues such as Diaa Rashwan, scholar at the Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo, expert in political Islam and extremist groups: “They wanted to confirm that referendums are completely out of the hands of the citizens, there is no point in voting. It would be like contributing to the government’s designs. In this way, the approval of the amendments is fruit of the Ndp alone”.
It is not clear if the low turn out at the polls was the citizens’ response to the call to boycott or to the massive deployment of uniformed and plain-clothed security forces everywhere before and during the referendum. Paradoxically linked, the two factors have nevertheless hit the mark: “At the last referendum, that of 2005 on the change to article 76, 53% of the assigned citizens voted. The actual participation this time, will be between 5 and 10% even if the official figures say – as stipulated by the scholar – that around 27% of the assigned citizens voted”. An almost universal vote in favour (76%) was expected. “It was important to give the impression, inside and outside of the country, that the results are real, attainable. This has been the government’s game, which really tried to get the people to go to the polls with an impotent campaign on the governmental media”, states Rashwan. At this point, with a modified Constitution, the opposition do not many alternatives left: “Boycotting the law-making process, nothing more”, explains the poitologue of the Ahram Centre.
The director of Maat concludes however, reflecting on the possibility that a revolution explodes in Egypt, perhaps with the dusk of the regime: “The only ones who would be able to raise a rebellion, to mobilize the people, are the Muslim Brothers, but it is not worth their while. They would lose financing which comes from abroad, especially from Saudi Arabia”. To conclude, the testimony of Osama, photographer, who proceeded to the seat just before the close of the vote, anticipated for seven pm: “I saw them with my own eyes (the scrutators). They were counting and looking over the votes. I saw many no’s put on the yes psile, just as those which were not valid were counted as a yes. And I also saw the majority of the yes votes had the same kind of sign, a circle and a line, in red; as if they had all been done by the same person”. Osama will be unlikely to come back and vote, if there are any referendums in Egypt ever again.
Translation by Sonia Ter Hovanessian