EGYPT: Constitutional Changes Override Opposition

By Adam Morrow Reprint | | Print |

Adam Morrow and Khaled Moussa al-Omrani

CAIRO, Jan 25 2007 (IPS) - Constitutional changes have been proposed in Egypt, but not in line with what the opposition had been demanding.

At an animated parliamentary session Jan. 17, the national assembly provisionally approved an earlier request by President Hosni Mubarak to amend 34 articles of the national constitution. The decision came despite spirited resistance by MPs from the Islamist opposition and smaller leftist parties.

In a front-page interview in the Jan. 20 edition of government daily al-Ahram, Mubarak stated that the proposed changes were “aimed at activating the role of political parties.” The President went on to note that “ongoing reforms are made in the interests of the people and not in the interests of particular persons, parties or social classes.”

The decision was overwhelmingly supported in parliament by MPs from the President’s ruling National Democratic Party (NDP), which comprises roughly four-fifths of the assembly. The only opposition party to lend its support to the move was the liberal Wafd Party, which has five parliamentary seats.

Opposition to the move, meanwhile, was led by representatives of the banned-but-tolerated Muslim Brotherhood – which has 88 of the assembly’s 454 seats – along with a handful of smaller, secular parties.

The constitutional articles to be amended cover a number of contentious issues, including the extent of executive authority, the role of parliament, judicial supervision of the electoral process and the longstanding state of emergency.

Draft amendments of the 34 articles are expected to be drawn up by parliament’s legislative council – which is dominated by the ruling party – and presented to the national assembly after 60 days.

In a highly publicised speech in November, Mubarak vowed that 2007 would witness “the widest range of constitutional reform since 1980″(when he came to power), with the aim of “ushering in a new era of political change.” But while constitutional revision has long been a cherished goal of the opposition, critics of the decision say the proposed amendments will only serve to bolster the power of the President and his ruling party.

By way of example, opposition figures point to the amendment of constitutional Article 76 in 2005, which paved the way for Egypt’s first ever multi-candidate presidential election. While the change was lauded in the state press for putting an end to the previous yes-or-no referendum system, stringent qualification requirements on would-be candidates were introduced.

Ultimately, the amendment served to prevent the Muslim Brotherhood – widely considered the most potent opposition force in the country – from fielding a presidential candidate.

This time around, opposition leaders and political activists are most concerned with proposed changes to articles dealing with the limits of presidential power (Article 74); the electoral process (Article 76, again); limits on the presidential term in office (Article 77); and judicial supervision of elections (Article 88).

In the immediate wake of the parliamentary decision, 101 Brotherhood and independent MPs (along with a dissenter each from the NDP and Wafd Party) issued a statement registering their collective dissatisfaction with the proposed changes. The move, the statement read, “reflects a unilatateralist vision that doesn’t express the social and national accord” and “will ultimately lead to the total monopolisation of authority” by the ruling party.

Critics of the regime are particularly worried that the government’s promises of “political reform” represent little more than cover for behind-the-scenes machinations aimed at the eventual ascension of Gamal Mubarak, the President’s 43-year-old son, to the presidency.

“The aim of the amendments is abundantly clear – namely, the strengthening of the notion of presidential inheritance,” Abdel Halim Qandil, editor-in-chief of opposition weekly al-Karama told IPS. “As for the articles governing the relationship between the presidency, the cabinet and parliament, these are just empty words.”

According to Atef al-Banna, professor of constitutional law at Cairo University, inconsistencies in the draft amendments currently being hashed out by the legislative council could eventually be exploited to provide legal cover for the inheritance of the presidency.

“One article stipulates that if the president can’t carry out his responsibilities, the prime minister will take over the presidential mandate,” he said. “Yet elsewhere, it’s stipulated that parliament has the authority to withdraw confidence from the prime minister and his government.”

Such ambiguities, al-Banna told IPS, “leave the door wide open for the eventual inheritance of the presidency.”

Local political analysts have been quick to draw comparisons between the current situation in Egypt and what happened in Azerbaijan in 2003. In that year, Ilham Aliyev, son of the president, was appointed prime minister only two months before the death of his father – after which he easily won the presidency in elections fraught with violations.

The Muslim Brotherhood, which has seen scores of its members arrested in the last month, has also issued warnings that presidential inheritance is imminent. In fact, many Brotherhood members say the current crackdown – which came after the group’s alleged organisation of a ‘military parade’ in mid-December – was launched in hopes of pre-empting opposition to the impending accession of Gamal Mubarak to the presidency.

“The government is trying to derail our efforts to oppose the amendment of the constitution and to oppose the inheritance soap opera, the final episode of which Egypt is watching now,” Saad al-Husseini, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Brotherhood’s parliamentary bloc told IPS.