WATANI International
24 January 2010
–
There are at least three main sets of barriers that inhibit the full inclusion of the Copts in Egypt’s political system.
First: Absence of Political Participation
In a campaign speech (July 2005), President Mubarak promised constitutional and legislative reforms to allow “achieving an optimal electoral system, which ensures increased opportunities for representation of political parties in representative councils, and strengthen the presence of women in Parliament.” Much has been written about this new system. Some even dared to demand a mechanism of positive discrimination (affirmative action) for women and Copts. Such is possible, even necessary, according to the provisions of the Constitution’s Articles 8 (the State guarantees equal opportunities for all citizens…), and 40 (citizens are equal before the law..). In the views of the known legal jurisprudent Dr Fathi Ragab “the uniformity in legal status, upon which the jurisprudence and the judiciary are based, mandates a uniform treatment (..) Hence it is necessary to develop laws that would ensure the implementation of positive discrimination for women and Copts”. He further calls to attention the established principle of constitutional law regarding the possibility of raising the level of the weaker to that of the stronger (“elevating equality” ), because it is not a matter of establishing equality between equals, but of (positively) discriminating between non-equals.
Last summer, a law guaranteeing women a minimum of 64 seats in the parliament was approved at lightning speed. Some started to wonder about applying similar (positive discrimination) measures to the Copts, as the reasoning and justifications are identical. But the officials’ reactions were quite negative. When the idea of a “quota” (in one form or another) was suggested, as a temporary measure until the society gets used to deal with Copts as full citizens, official rejections were fast to come, claiming that such measures would establish “sectarianism.” The NPD’s Dr Ali Eddin Hilal said that “the basis for political action is the principle of citizenship, and that the Copts are citizens with full rights and all duties, just like any other citizen” (!) [Does applying discrimination measures to women imply that they are not citizens having all rights and all duties?].
Mr. Gamal Mubarak described those calling for such Quota as “saboteurs.”
He added: “Despite admitting that the Copts have some problems, their solution comes through dialogue and not through ‘politicizing’ the issue of Copts”. [Being the NPD’s Secretary of “Syassat” (Arabic for both “policies” and “politics), and by refusing a “politicization”, the whole Coptic issue may have become totally out of his concerns, even though all problems require some “policies” in order to be resolved..]
Many set their remaining hopes on changing the electoral system to adopt the “proportional list” method (which would, theoretically, allow parties to include more Coptic candidates). However, President Mubarak declared (Sept. 10) that the “individual candidate system” is more appropriate at this point. This presidential firman, which was not preceded by any kind of debate, let alone ignoring the President’s own “electoral promise,” came as a cold shower. It is hence clear that there is no intention by the political leadership to address the problem. Yet, many people continue to burry their heads in the sand and hope that the regime will eventually render some justice to their cause.
Second: A Constitution that Enshrines the “Theocratic State”
There is no need to go back in details to the issue of the Second Article of the Egyptian Constitution. We only draw attention to the appeal issued in March 2007 by the CIHRS, and signed by many intellectuals, politicians and human rights advocates. It called for a modification, taking into account: a) that Islam is the religion of the majority of Egyptians; b) enjoying religious and civil freedoms should be independent of citizen’s beliefs; and c) the need for all State organs to adhere to neutrality regarding various faiths and believers. Political leaders initially denounced the statement, and then ignored it altogether.
The regime has for long adopted a kind of “creative ambiguity” regarding the exact nature of our State system, so that it looks “civil” (meaning some kind of “secular” without using such a tabooed-word) for some – especially the international community; and “religious” for those who want a religious state. There were even some attempts to “market” Sharia, as Dr. Sorour (Speaker of the Parliament) once tried, saying that “the Copts do need (Sharia) because (Christianity has no laws) governing the inheritance, hence Sharia offers a law applicable for all” (sic!). [The issue of inheritance does not justify a sweeping constitutional text about Sharia. Moreover, such a law (where a woman gets half the share of a man) is hardly a Coptic “demand”!]
However, and for the first time, Dr Sorour, one of the pillars of the regime, clearly declared (last June) that Islam is “religion and State.” He further explained what is meant by the “principles of Sharia,” as being the “(..) the overall rules, taken from explicit texts of the Quran and the Sunnah.”
Dr Sorour has, hence, adopted the positions of extremist Islamists that Sharia is enforceable, not for its ability to deal with societal realities, but simply because of its “origin.” He also stressed that the judiciary may resort directly to Sharia (and not laws in force).
Given who he is, we are to conclude that his position represents that of the regime, which in fact seems to adopt a theocratic system (= a State based on a “religious referential”), and in which religion becomes the basis of citizenship. The presence of Articles such as 40 and 46 is a mere sign of the “schizophrenic” nature of the Constitution, where Article 2 in reality “abrogates” other Articles. As the late thinker Mohamed El-Sayed Said put it, there is (in the Constitution) an inherent conflict between two concepts of the State: one based on identifying it as belonging to a particular faith or ethnic origin; and the other on identifying it as an expression of a homeland where equality among its citizens is ensured.
We draw attention to two points of some significance:
1- The International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, signed by Egypt in 1967, is not fully binding because the related presidential decree stressed that ratification was subject to the provisions of Sharia. This reservation annuls the Convention and, in itself, confirms that there are contradictions between Sharia and human rights charters.
2- Dr Kamal Aboul-Magd, Vice Chairman of the National Council for Human Rights, recently said that “he can not find an appropriate description of those demanding the abolition of Sharia (from the Constitution), as we cannot find a single individual in the West calling for the abolition of French law. This is madness” (sic!). Notice the absurdity of the comparison which is, moreover, coming from the de-facto primary responsible of “human rights” in Egypt.
Third: Growing Societal Marginalization
It is often said that Copts have “chosen” to withdraw from the political life for reasons of their own. But if we simply keep in mind that the Copts have been involved in national and political life during the first half of the twentieth century well beyond their relative demographic weight, we can safely conclude that their current “withdrawal” is in fact an imposed marginalization.
We also believe that the political marginalization, however undeniably grave, represents only the tip of an iceberg, because the growing societal marginalization, which is a direct result of the regime’s policies, has become even a bigger problem.
It is not the place here to elaborate on the well-documented total lack of equality regarding freedom-of-belief issues. It is particularly painfully true in areas related to the church building procedures, and what these lead to by way of violence when mobs take the law in their hands and attack any building that (they imagine) ‘might’ be used for the purposes of prayer “without license.”
Instead, we will limit ourselves to a specific point regarding the phenomenon of societal marginalization:
We have previously proven that there is a ceiling to the proportion of Copts in all public posts (not just “high ranking” ones, as some claim!) in the police, the army, the local governance, the judiciary, the diplomatic corps, the academia, etc. This ceiling is capped at about 2%. Furthermore, Copts are simply banned from entering certain “exclusive” entities…
On the other hand, a Muslims-only educational system (Azhari) has grown during the reign of President Mubarak by about thirty-folds; now enrolling over two million students, from primary school to university. The ensuing duality of education threatens to create a serious societal fracture. Instead of tackling the problem, the regime went even further and took some very serious steps, which are often overlooked:
In 2004, holders of the certificate of al-Azhar secondary schools were admitted, for the first time, into the police academy. In 2008 these also began to be admitted into the various military academies (war, marine, air and technical institute). This paradigm shift will lead to making the army and the police more “religious” than at any time in the past two centuries. Just imagine the attitude of an Azahari officer towards Copts, whom he only knows about through the books of dthimitude, which were part of his prior curricula.
***
The expression “barriers,” in the title of this article, may suggest the existence of constraints that could eventually be removed or surmounted. But what we have discussed, will hopefully demonstrate that the Copts are in fact facing formidable “concrete walls,” erected and sustained by the regime.
Unless there will be a radical change in direction, there is no hope to achieve progress on the issue of “full inclusion of all members of society in the political system.” Activists should intensify their noble efforts, taking into account; first, the vital need to “convince” the political leadership to adopt the principles of secularism (= contrary to a State with “religious referential”) and to be taken to task whenever they do not respect human and citizenship rights; and secondly the need to “rehabilitate” the public opinion to realize that freedom and democracy form parts of an integrated package of principles, in which the “ballot boxes” process only forms a small part.
_______________________________________________________________
This is a summary of an original paper presented at a conference held in Cairo by CIHRS (Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies) and POMED (Project of Middle East Democracy). [email protected]