Opinion | Columnists

A muddled transition to democracy

Mursi’s decree has enthused Mubarak regime supporters as well as conservative forces within the army and the security establishment who believe Egypt is not ready for democracy and can only be ruled by an iron fist

  • By Magdi Abdelhadi
  • Published: 00:00 November 29, 2012
  • Gulf News

  • Image Credit: AP
  • Egyptian protesters carry large national flags in Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt, Tuesday, Nov. 27, 2012.

Egypt’s muddled transition from dictatorship to democracy has entered a dangerous phase with the president and his Islamist supporters arrayed against the rest — each side claiming to be the true defender of democracy and the revolution. President Mohammad Mursi says his controversial decree (euphemistically called ‘constitutional declaration’) is only a provisional measure to defend the revolution and ensure a swift passage to democracy. And a presidential spokesman has now said that only decisions related to “sovereign matters” will be protected from judicial review. He may be sincere. But exceptional temporary measures in Egypt have a history of becoming permanent.

Back in 1954, Colonel Jamal Abdul Nasser, the leader of the military coup that overthrew the monarchy, abolished all political parties in order to fight the “reactionary forces” of the ancient regime. To this day, Egypt is still struggling to extricate itself from his legacy of an all-powerful president who rules by decrees with the help of a secret police.

Back then, the judiciary, like today, played a crucial role. The midwives of Nasser’s dictatorship were some of Egypt’s finest legal minds who had lost faith in the old ruling elite. Political expediency superseded lofty legal and constitutional principles, and justice itself became the first victim of revolutionary justice.

Today the judiciary is divided between those who support Mursi’s swift justice, and those who say they are fighting for the rule of law and independence of the judiciary. The problem is that some of the latter, especially the leadership of the Judges Club, have for years been loyal servants of Hosni Mubarak and never stood up to him.

Mursi and his supporters may be right in suspecting that old regime stalwarts within the administration are trying to thwart a transition to democracy. But they are equally guilty of pursuing a narrow Islamist agenda. The decision to protect the controversial constituent assembly — packed with Islamists and their supporters — from any legal challenge, seems to provide evidence for that.

The Muslim Brotherhood and its allies feel they are entitled to draft a constitution to their liking, ignoring many well-founded legal and political arguments that such an important document should not be written by the winners of an election, but by representatives of a broad spectrum of Egyptian society.

The constitutional court is due to issue its verdict on the legality of the assembly next month, and it was widely expected to dissolve the panel drafting the new constitution because many of its members were drawn from a parliament which had been dissolved. This would have been the second time the constituent assembly was dissolved because of disputes over the criteria of selecting its members.

Who is to blame for this mess? A muddled roadmap for transition was laid down by the military council which ruled Egypt after the overthrow of Mubarak in February 2011. Instead of starting by laying down new rules for the game by drafting the constitution first, they rushed to a parliamentary election based on a faulty electoral law. The law was subsequently challenged and the Islamist-dominated parliament was dissolved.

The Muslim Brotherhood also bears part of the blame, because it supported that roadmap, thinking it would enable the Brotherhood to take power quickly. Things didn’t turn out that way. And when existing laws stood in its way, it decided to change the rules to its advantage.

The scene is now set for a mighty confrontation as more and more judges and politicians line up against Mursi and his party. In fact, Mursi has succeeded in something no one else has: unifying the fractious liberal and leftist groups.

But failure to reach a compromise could plunge Egypt further into political chaos and paralyse the machinery of the state. The judges have said they will go on strike to bring the legal system to a halt until Mursi backs down. With both sides sending their supporters to the streets, the fear is that it could turn very nasty, though optimists believe Egypt has always pulled back from the brink. Let’s hope they are right.

Egypt’s muddled transition is proving to be a steep learning curve, if not a precipice. The current fear of impending chaos has once again raised the spectre of ‘the saviour leader’. Old regime supporters as well as conservative forces within the army and the security establishment believe Egypt is not ready for democracy and can only be ruled by an iron fist. They are watching with glee as political crises unfold in quick succession. They are now praying for a strong man to emerge from the shadows to prevent a descent into anarchy.

— Guardian News & Media Ltd

 

Magdi Abdelhadi is a freelance writer and broadcaster and former Arab affairs analyst for the BBC.

Gulf News