Reflections on constitutional reform
There is no doubt in my mind that today’s announcement was a historically important one in Egypt’s history. When you change a country’s way of electing its topmost leader in such a fundamental way, the immediate effect does not matter, it’s the principle that is important. What Hosni Mubarak has done is to significantly loosen the stranglehold that the ruling party had on who could even be a candidate in elections, and introduce the concept of contested presidential elections for the first time. Perhaps not as big a step as some might want or expect, but still an important step.
Now, that being said, is it enough? Probably not. First of all, the reform introduced today only deals with Article 76 of the 1971 constitution — a constitution that many reformists have called to be scrapped altogether. It does not weaken the power of the institution of the presidency, nor does it meet the fairly radical standards demanded by parties such as Al Ghad. Until now it still remains unclear what is actually being proposed, but from what I’ve found out it would include the following:
Well that’s it for the procedural aspect of it — and I’m not a lawyer and this book, while often handy, is in this case less helpful than I thought it might be. But it did tell me that Egypt introduced its first constitution that was actually described as such (using the word “dostour“) in 1923 — before that there had only been a series of “organic laws.” The 1923 constitution was suspended in 1930, when a rather totalitarian new constitution was introduced to much resistance. It was scrapped by royal decree in 1934, and the old 1923 constitution came back into effect. That one lasted until 1952, when the Free Officers abrogated it. A constitution was drafted in 1954 but was never made public after Nasser essentially led a coup against Egypt’s first president, Muhammad Naguib. The first constitution of republican Egypt came into being in 1956, and was quickly followed by a new constitution in 1958 when the United Arab Republic came into effect bringing Syria and Egypt under a single government. After Syria withdrew, a temporary constitutional declaration came into effect (in 1962) and then in 1964 a new constitution was promulgated. It was replaced by the current 1971 constitution, which grants much power to the presidency, which has only been amended twice, in 1977 and 1980 (corrected.) All republican constitutions adopted a mixed presidential-parliamentary system.
Now for the politics of it. People are interpreting this very differently on the ground here in Cairo. The official opposition seems to have embraced it unequivocally, often praising Mubarak in the process. The reaction from activists from movement such as Kefaya seem to be saying that a) it’s not enough and b) reject that it comes from American pressure. Political scientists such Al Ahram Center for Strategic and Political Studies Director Abdel Moneim Said, who is close to Gamal Mubarak and the ruling National Democratic Party, say it was planned all along as part of the NDP’s new platform (if so, they never mentioned anything about it.) Independent political analysts are being cautious, welcoming the step but saying that it will take more than constitutional reform to make Egypt democratic. They are also suspicious of the restrictions on independent candidates. I haven’t heard of any reaction from the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Muhammad Akef. Pro-American liberals say it’s all thanks to Bush and the cancellation of Condoleeza Rice’s trip.
On that last point, there is something rather confusing. If Mubarak knew he was going to do this, why did he cancel the G8 meeting on democracy in Cairo that was going to take place next week and why did he not convince Rice to come anyway? Also, some people are saying he planned this in advance and this is why the only potentially serious rival candidate, Ayman Nour, was jailed.
I think that US pressure definitely had a role in this, although I think the rising chorus of voices against Mubarak inside the country also had something to do with it. The truth is that no matter how much I dislike Bush, some of his Middle East policy does have positive effects in the region. (Actually I am much more opposed to Bush on his domestic policy than his foreign policy, but that’s another matter.) This is one positive effect at first sight, but the question remains as to whether it’s just yet another safety valve that will ensure regime survival. I haven’t seen any statements yet, but it’s likely the Bush administration will welcome this and perhaps might reward it (although the Nour issue will still have to be resolved.) This move gives Mubarak considerable international prestige as the first Arab leader to ever reduce his own power (correct me if I am wrong) but without giving up anything in reality if the political context remains the same.
The question now is, if you are against Mubarak’s re-election, what constitutes a serious candidate? So far we have Saad Eddin Ibrahim, Muhammad Farid Hassanein and Nawal Saadawi (and three others who are essentialyl nobodies). None of them are electable. I have an idea of who might be, but that’s for another post.
Categories: Egypt.
15 Responses to “Reflections on constitutional reform”
- 1 Trackback on Feb 27th, 2005 at 2:15 am
- 2 Trackback on Feb 28th, 2005 at 3:47 am
- 3 Pingback on Nov 19th, 2005 at 12:04 am
Thanks for this, Issandr.
Neil MacFarquhar (Scotch-Egyptian?) has this:
“Essam el-Eryan, a leader in the Muslim Brotherhood, a fundamentalist group that is banned as a party, noted that the revised amendment might limit the choice of candidates by barring those not endorsed by a legal political party.”
I saw in an earlier piece that another MB guy said they would study this and decide what to do.
Thanks Issandr. Let us assume that there will be at least one other contender for the presidency and none of them is a brotherhood memeber and that voting will be by secret ballot. It seems to me this will be the first time we will get a pretty good idea of the strength of and political clout of the Brotherhood in the country. If I were a Brotherhood member (God forbids), I would vote against Mubarak. This will be very interesting to watch.
MM
The coming weeks and months may see a rekindling of the interest in what I thought was a pretty liberal constitution known as the “CONSITITUTION IN THE GARBAGE PIN” . Any idea if the full text of this consitituion is available?
Thanks for keeping us informed.
One small step in the right direction.
I have often heard Amr Moussa suggested as the only realistic candidate for a popular election against the encumbent - is it now his turn to throw his hat into the ring?
Also, if Mubarak wins a multi-candidate presidential election at the end of the year, will this change the way he rules? Will he begin to behave in the way Bouteflika has in Algeria over the past year, pushing aside opponents while waving his mandate?
Simon
Thumbs up Issandr.
Who will be a ’serious respectable’ candidate? I am afraid Egyptians will have the freedom to choose which Mubarak to rule for the next five years…
Ofcourse this decision is historical and a first step, but Article 77 might need some adjustments as well. Elections are a form of handing over your real democratic powers for a long period, it only takes one day every five years. The limitations on power are far more important to ensure a true representation of the people’s will.
I am rather sceptical about the motives of Mubarak’s decision to make this step ‘in line with the stage of this nation’s history’. I think he is more interested in his own history and is only trying to increase his power. Outwardly he can score some bonus points by ‘reducing’ his power and after his reelection he will claim his powers to be democratic. But democracy is more than free elections.
I am curiously looking forward to future developments and your next analysis.
Excellent analysis issandr.
One slight matter I defer on….I keep trying to imagine what it was like to be an observer in 1976 when Sadat introduced the multi-party platforms…..that did not really end so well and certainly was never designed to bring democratic development.
That said, 1976 is still probably bigger than yesterday’s announcement according to my reading.
Good and thorough job man.
this certainly opnes up some perspectives. Its a victory for the forces of change in Egypt, and a present for the credibility of the american master of puppets. However it is still to be seen in how far this will realy be translated in a serious campaign and free elections.
I think the oppsoition should rally arround one candidate. Amr Moussa would be ideal, however he is too frightened to undertake that step. I think the main point here is what will be after Moubarak and not during his life. I think once he kicks the bucket we can see maybe a real campaign in Egypt between gamal Moubarak and other contenders.
Well first of all let us see you do something about the Apartheid regime in Israel before we can call you a spreader of democracy ( not to mention Tunesia, saudi and other retarded allies of the US) but I bet with all the Arabs I know that you will never put pressure on Sharon to end its stealing of Palestinian land, and its building of the racist Apartheid wall on palestinian land. Not to mention the flagrant discriminations on non-jewish citizens in the state itself.
As long as your support to Isreal in this flagrant way will continue, you can even resusitate mother Tereza and elect her for president, we will still hate your guts.
Amen to what you said Sam!
The motives once more, trying to look at the motives, I think Mubarak had to say that- which is a baby step in democracy- after tremendous pressures, may be from out side Egypt more. This little step is on line with official announced trend and against the official unannounced one. No intention to reform was apparent from the government actions for the last years, not even the slightest sign, in contrast all actions where to establish more the people in power and reduce the choices and freedom for the rest of the Egyptians and whatever happened to lighten up the oppression in Egypt was obligatory and fairly ignored by government like the Satellite Media. Most probably that Mubarak party had a full plan and confidence that he will have whatever he wants of presidency periods for him self or his son and this is step is part of the NDP face lift. They have killed the opposition since years, last victim of NDP “democracy” was Ayman Nour . Can the dead speak or run for presidency- the government paved for us a door step not a run way- that what 2005 will show us.