The few days prior to the presidential elections saw Egypt embroiled in the aftermath of two key rulings issued on Thursday 14 June by the Supreme Constitutional Court.
The few days prior to the presidential elections saw Egypt embroiled in the aftermath of two key rulings issued on Thursday 14 June by the Supreme Constitutional Court. The first ruled that the elections which brought in the People’s Assembly (PA), the lower house of Egypt’s Parliament, were unconstitutional; meaning the assembly in its entirety should be dissolved. The second decreed that what has come to be known as the political disenfranchisement law is unconstitutional. The law, which was passed last month, is concerned with exercising political rights, and bars anyone who had held a leading post under the pre-revolution regime from running for public office.
The two SCC rulings served to restore the confidence of Egyptians in the judicial authority. It proved that rulings are fair, and are uninfluenced by any political current. Even though the rulings led to vociferous criticisms that bordered on incitement, a careful reading of the legal reasoning behind the rulings generated reassurance that justice was being honoured to the end.
In an unprecedented instance, Egypt today has a president but no constitution and no legislative council. The credit for that precarious condition may be put to the account of the parliamentary adventures that took place during the last seven months, and which ended with the court ruling that led to the PA being dissolved. Back to Square One, it was imperative for the ruling Military Council to issue the constitutional declaration which defined the presidential authorities and decreed that the president should take the oath before the head of the Constitutional Court.
I stopped long before this stipulation which many regard as a mere formula prescribed by the Military Council to fill a legislative void. I, however, did not see in the oath before the SCC a temporary manoeuvre to bypass the absence of a PA, but found in it an honourable practice that deserves to be established as a long-term tradition in the new constitution. That the president elected by the people should take the oath before the person who sits at the head of the supreme judicial authority in the State is a symbol of the utmost significance. The president possesses the authority—even if limited by a number of constraints—to dissolve parliament, but has no authority whatsoever to trifle with the SCC or with the immunity granted to its head. In short, parliament come and go, but the SCC remains solid, loyal to the constitution and monitor over all the traditions, procedures, and legislative and political courses taken by the State. As such, it is the most adequate body before which an elected president should take the oath.
The constitutional declaration had to tackle another predicament: that of the constituent assembly tasked with writing the new constitution. The Islamist-majority PA, which had selected the members of the assembly, hijacked the panel for the benefit of the Islamist majority. When that move was ruled unconstitutional by the court, and the constituent assembly was dissolved, the Islamist-majority parliament again selected an Islamist-majority panel to write the constitution. This resulted in walkouts from the assembly by non-Islamist members, as well as several complaints before the courts, but the SCC ruling to dissolve the PA came to put an end to all that.
Why cannot the constitutional declaration be amended so that the SCC would be assigned to select the members of the constituent assembly that should write the constitution? The SCC enjoys wide public respect and confidence, and is also famously impartial. It is also above participating in the constituent assembly, so has no invested interest whatsoever in selecting particular members for the assembly. It is thus in perfect position to make balanced choices that meet the patriotic conditions which ought to dominate the writing of a new constitution based on consensus. So far that consensus has been lacking amid the tug-of-war and distrust which dominated the political scene and which created a wide chasm between the minorities and the majority which insisted on imposing its will on them.
It is time we re-form the pillars of our political life to allow for true democracy and power rotation in both the legislative and executive authorities. We should very strongly establish the independence of the judiciary, and grant high-ranking constitutional authorities to the head of this authority: the SCC. If we accomplish that, the sovereignty of the people would have been wholly maintained against any whim or adventure a parliamentary majority may drag us into.
WATANI International
24 June 2012