WATANI International
4 September 2011
The concept of supra-constitutional principles is no Egyptian invention. The Magna Carta was drawn in England in 1215, the Declaration of Rights of Man and the Citizen in France in 1789, and the Bill of Rights in 1791 in the United States of America. And these are only a sample of similar documents worldwide.
The notion was picked up by liberal movements in Egypt as the only way out of the current political conflict between liberals and Islamists. With supra-constitutional principles in place, and measures approved for the establishment of the constituent assembly that would draft the new constitution, no particular political movement or current would be able to monopolise the writing of the new constitution. And Egypt can look forward to gaining a balanced, well-drafted, non-discriminative constitution that would ensure the rights of Egyptians across the board.
Warning of “dire consequences”
Several rights and political movements and figures in Egypt individually took the initiative of setting proposals for basic, all-Egyptian, patriotic principles to govern the drafting of any constitution. They later gathered and issued a single proposal, fine-tuned in the light of public response to their initial proposals. They also suggested the measures to be applied in the selection of the members of the constituent assembly that would write the constitution, in order to fully guarantee that Egyptians in all their diversity would be perfectly represented in the drafting of the new constitution.
The notion was endorsed by the Egyptian post-revolution government which a few weeks ago announced the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces would issue a set of principles to govern the writing of the new constitution, and cast it for public vote.
Directly, bitter controversy erupted between supporters and opponents. Mostly, it was the liberals who were for setting supra-constitutional principles, while the proponents of political Islam were vehemently against that; they even issued a dire warning that the institution of such principles would carry “dire consequences” for the Egyptian society.
Sayed Abdel-Aal, secretary-general of leftist Tagammu party, Mohammed Hamed, member of Liberal Egyptians party, and Essam Shiha, member of the Wafd party which, despite its liberal past has opted for a coalition with the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), all agree that instating governing constitutional principles would place Egypt on the path to true democracy. It would also work to effectively settle the dispute currently raging among political movements over which should come first: parliamentary elections or a new constitution. Those calling for a constitution first wish to eliminate the possibility that the new constitution would be monopolised by the political stream that would win a majority in parliament, to the detriment of all other Egyptian sectors. Those calling for elections first—mainly the Islamists—wish to secure for themselves just that chance.
“The governing principles would guarantee freedom, a civil State, and citizenship rights,” the liberals insist.
Islamist rejection
Rejection by political Islam groups was unanimous.
Judge and Islamic scholar Tareq al-Bishry, and Mamdouh Ismail, a lawyer who represents the MB, vociferously oppose the institution of governing constitutional principles. They insist it would constitute a hijacking of the people’s will, even while they claim the notion carries no clout.
“The establishment of governing constitutional principles is unconstitutional,” according to Islamist lawyer Sobhy Saleh. Since it is being advocated mainly for the purpose of securing minority rights, he says, these principles may be ‘regulating’ not ‘governing’.
Through their spokesman Khaled Said, the Salafis announced their rejection of the move to instate governing constitutional principles, warning that they plan to hold public protests and to inundate the office of Prime Minister Essam Sharaf with no less than a million telefax messages against the move.
For his part, the Islamic scholar and potential presidential candidate Selim al-Awwa rejected the idea of placing principles to govern the writing of the constitution or the selection of members of the constituent assembly. This, in his opinion, is no more than an attempt to restrict the political clout of the Islamist currents.
A number of Sufi sheikhs, however—Sufis do not call for an Islamic State—expressed their support of governing constitutional principles. Sheikh Alaa’ Abul-Azayem, member of Sufi reform front, believes they should secure citizenship rights while acknowledging Islamic sharia as the main source of legislation, thus ensuring a democratic State. In this light, Sheikh Abul-Azayem finds the vehement rejection of the notion by the MB and Salafis inexplicable unless, he sceptically points out, they wish to draft a constitution according to their own whims.
The people’s will
It has been suggested that the proposal put forth by the topmost Islamic scholarly authority, al-Azhar—famous for its endorsement of moderate Islam—for a vision of a new Egyptian State should be taken into consideration. The al-Azhar document calls for democracy and stresses that Islam does not call for a religious-based State. The Grand Imam, Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb, says that governing constitutional principles could lay the base for drafting a new constitution, reminding that “the people are the source of powers; under no condition should their will be disregarded or hijacked.”
The liberals could not agree more.