The Egyptian draft constitution was endorsed by a popular vote last week, but almost a third of the voters voted against it and a majority of nearly 52 million registered voters simply did not bother to vote. This suggests that the constitutional document, rather than representing the product of compromise and collaboration from across the various segments of the Egyptian society, reflects the deep divisions of a polarised society. Instead of “We the People of Egypt”, the document represents “We, Some of the People of Egypt”.
Mohammad Mursi, the President of Egypt, must accept some responsibility for creating such a polarisation. It is to his credit, however, that in his speech last Wednesday he admitted that some mistakes were made and promised a national dialogue to heal the wounds, promote reconciliation and build national consensus, so necessary for the consolidation of the institutions of democracy. The leaders of the opposition too must accept some responsibility for the polarising divisions in the Egyptian society. Their refusal to participate in the national dialogue does little to strengthen the foundations of democracy they claim to be protecting in the name of the Egyptian people.
The Egyptian constitution is an imperfect document and it ought to be considered work-in-progress. In some areas it is vague; in other areas it is verbose; in yet other areas it creates far too many commitments for the state. This at times makes the constitution resemble the electoral programme of a political party. To remedy this and other flaws, the president and the government must reach out to the various social and political forces to build coalitions, promote participation and ensure that national dialogue leads to a constitution that truly reflects the first sentence in its preamble: “We the People of Egypt”.
These opening words “We the People”, rendered famous by the American Constitution, are not only eloquent, they are also meaningful. They at once define the source of all authority — the people — and introduce the fundamental principle of democratic governance, namely government on the basis of the consent of the governed.
The nascent Egyptian democracy and the framers of its constitution can learn a great deal from the American experience. In the preamble to the American Constitution, the phrase “We the People of the United States” defines the purpose of the constitution, namely “to form a more perfect union,” establish justice and secure the Blessings of Liberty. This one paragraph-preamble is immediately followed by the seven articles that make up the American Constitution — hailed as a masterpiece of clarity and brevity. The Egyptian preamble alone, on the other hand, is made up of 11 articles. The body of the constitution itself consists of no less than 236 articles. In a country that labours under the incapacitating burden of some 40 per cent illiteracy rate, did the framers of the Egyptian Constitution really expect a majority of
Egyptian voters to read, understand and form an informed opinion about the constitution?
Article 5 of the Egyptian Constitution does recognise the all-important democratic principle that sovereignty resides in the people and all authority derives from the people. However, it does not say why and it does not attempt to advance any philosophical explanation: “Sovereignty is for the people alone and they are the source of authority”. Compare this with the inspirational formulation set forth by Thomas Jefferson for the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
The second fundamental feature of democratic governance is the separation of powers and checks and balances between the legislative, executive and judiciary, to guard against the accumulation of powers — the very definition of tyranny. The Egyptian president’s recent faux pas included his ill-fated and mercifully short-lived accumulation of power, which was rightly rejected as inconsistent with democratic governance.
The Egyptian Constitution provides in Article 6 that the Egyptian political system is based on, among other democratic foundations, the principle of separation of powers and the balance among them. But the same article defines the Egyptian political system as based on democracy and Shura. There is no elaboration of this novel concept. If Shura means consulting the people, democracy already encompasses this principle and Shura here is redundant. If Shura, on the other hand, is meant to be a unique Islamic concept of governance that complements democracy, or that sometimes replaces certain features of democracy, then the constitution should say so and explain why it is so. The more likely explanation is that the inclusion of Shura here is intended to give democracy an Islamic character, but without elaboration and without identification of how much power the concept of Shura should have in its relation to democratic rule, nor of what checks can be placed on it to make its use consistent with democratic governance — for instance, to guard against the tyranny of the majority and to provide for the protection of minorities.
Perhaps one of the most important lessons the Egyptians can draw from the American experience is contained in the famous essay No 10 of the Federalist Papers by James Madison — the father of the American Constitution. In answering the question whether or not the republican government established by the constitution can protect the individual liberties, Madison argued that the most destructive threat to democratic government is the emergence of factions. He defined factions as: “A number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united … by some common impulse of passion …, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the … interests of the community.” Factions, Madison warned, become especially dangerous if they form a majority of the population.
The challenge for the Egyptian president, the government and the various forces of opposition is to rise above factionalism, promote national unity and protect the nascent democracy against its detractors in the interest of and for the welfare of the people of Egypt.
Adel Safty is distinguished professor adjunct at the Siberian Academy of Public Administration, Russia. His new book, Might Over Right, is endorsed by Noam Chomsky and published in England by Garnet, 2009.
