“The Constitution lives for future generations to reap what we have sown, while Parliament is by definition temporary.” Judge Tahany al-Gibali,Vice-President of the Supreme
“The Constitution lives for future generations to reap what we have sown, while Parliament is by definition temporary.” Judge Tahany al-Gibali,Vice-President of the Supreme Constitutional Court, thus voiced her fears of the monopoly by the parliamentary majority over the selection of the members of the constituent assembly tasked with drafting Egypt’s new constitution. Judge Gibali said that: “a reading of the political scene reveals ill-will, exposed by the insistence that MPs should participate in the constituent assembly. Actually, the assembly should be independent of parliamentary influence.”
For his part, the deputy to the head of the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), the Muslim Brotherhood’s (MB) political arm, Essam al-Erian said that controversy over the substance and content of the constitution has been resolved. All the political forces and parties, he said, reached an agreement that the basic framework of the constitution should lie within the principles cited in the al-Azhar Document and the Document of the Democratic Alliance for Egypt. Any talk then, according to Dr Erian, about a specific stream that wishes to impose its views on the new constitution is irrelevant.
Both quotes by Judge Gibali and Dr Erian are not new; they were pronounced almost a month ago. Yet they both appear to encapsulate the conflict that rages on in the Egyptian street and political circles regarding the constituent assembly. I believe it is far-fetched that the Islamist parliamentary majority should confiscate the constitution to its specific principles and political agenda. All indicators signify that, should this occur, the fury of the street and all political and revolutionary forces in Egypt would render it impossible for the Islamists to get away with it. Yet I am unable to understand or accept the majority’s insistence on imposing its dominion over the selection of the constituent assembly members, be they from within or without Parliament. Other than being non-justifiable, such behaviour breeds suspicions and fears that the constitution would indeed be confiscated.
I keep on looking for an explanation for the contradiction between the words and deeds of the majority. At best, they might desire to draft on their own a consensus constitution that would secure the rights of all Egyptians, and that would go down to their credit in history. Yet such an explanation is way too politically naïve, since constitutions cannot be monopolised by any political or ideological current even with the very best of intentions. Constitutions may only achieve the desired consensus through full representation and participation of all the national groups where, on the same table, minorities are on the same footing as majorities.
The resistance by a few political and ideological forces to the concept of minorities and majorities being on equal footing reflects an alarmingly flawed conception that it is the majority’s prerogative to exclude the minorities or, at best, to patronise them. Both options are unacceptable, and base the groundwork for the majority to impose its views and interests on the constitution by virtue of its superiority in numbers and influence, with entire disregard of the weaker minority.
Something ought to be done to get out of this political predicament, to draft a constitution that would express the hopes and ambitions of all Egyptians and carry them on to a finer future. It is my belief that we should first agree on the principle of “consensus”. That would guarantee that no item of the constitution may pass should any sector of the national group see it as conflicting with the rights or freedoms of its members. Such items may never pass through a majority vote which can only be valid in drafting legislation not constitution. The provision of consensus alone may go a long way to reassure minorities and calm the fears of the wary.
It is also imperative that the fundamentals agreed upon as basics for the constitution should be placed on the table before all—I repeat all—sit down to draft the constitution. These fundamentals are the fruit of national efforts, and represent the minimum ambitions of the national group, and the assurance to go down the right path to draft a constitution. They are represented by the al-Azhar document for rights and freedoms, the document of the democratic alliance for Egypt, and the 10-point statement issued jointly by the MB and the Evangelical Church.
It is indeed a sorry sight when, while we possess and acknowledge such a national treasure, we should disregard it and engage in bitter squabbling as the majority works to sideline other streams on the national spectrum in an arrogant show of force, monopoly, discrimination, and exclusion. So we are back to Square One, discussing the governing principles of the constitution and the constituent assembly. If we do not hold on to consensus, the country will remain in flux and there will be no constitution for Egypt.
WATANI International
8 April 2012
