Yes or no is the dilemma in Egypt

Egyptians go to the polls on Saturday to give their verdict on the military’s plans for a rapid transition from the 30-year authoritarian rule of ousted president Hosni Mubarak.

Just five weeks after Mubarak quit, voters will be asked to say yes or no to a package of constitutional changes intended to guide the Arab world’s most populous nation through fresh parliamentary and presidential elections.

A closed committee drafted the changes in ten days. These were offered to the public for discussion for only three weeks, and until now have not been published in their final form for citizens to read before they are put to a vote.

"A ‘yes’ vote would shorten the political transition but at the risk of seeing the partisans of the old regime return to the scene. A ‘no’ vote would extend the transition at the risk of having no clarity about the future.”

Cairo: Despite not knowing what the constitutional changes may entail, Abdul Rahman Shukri, an attendant at a Cairo coffee shop, is enthusiastic about going to the polls tomorrow for a referendum on the amendments.

“I have never voted before. So it would be exciting to go and say yes or no to these amendments,” he said.

Egyptians are allowed to vote on these changes by using their identification cards. They do not need a vote card as was the case before.

“Since the January 25 revolution [which toppled president Hosni Mubarak], I have been closely following media reports. “Over the past few days, I have listened to TV programmes explaining some articles to be changed in the constitution.

“One of them reduces the terms a president can serve to two only, with each running for four years. “This is a great achievement,” Shukri, 54, added. “I’ll try to know what other articles say and I’ll vote for them because this is a good step for Egypt.”

For many Egyptians, who long for normalcy and fear that a no vote may prolong military rule, it will be a tough call. Nevertheless, they will have the novelty of real choice.

“For the first time in our lives, we will experience democracy and our voices will have value. “Do not let anyone determine your position,” one Facebook group posted.

“Egypt has to change. That will start when we decide for ourselves.”
Last February, a military council that took over after Mubarak’s ouster formed a committee of independent legal experts to propose changes to a 1971 constitution, which enabled Mubarak to rule the country for 30 years.

“Instead of beautifying an already ugly constitution, a constituent assembly should be created to draft a new constitution,” said Hussain Abdul Razzaq, the secretary-general of the leftist Tagammu Party.

“This constitution is invalid as it was enacted in 1971 when the one-party system was in force,” he told Gulf News.

A similar posture was announced by other opposition parties. “We completely reject these amendments as this constitution became a matter of the past with the success of the January 25 revolution,” said Tawhid Al Benhawi of the Nasserist Party.

“In addition, this constitution became null and void when Mubarak stepped down on February 11 and gave up his powers to the Military Council who suspended the constitution and dissolved the parliament,” he added.
The Military Council has said that demonstrations will be banned on the referendum day.

Meanwhile, the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s biggest opposition force, has lent its blessing to these amendments.

What next?

If voters vote for the amendments, parliamentary elections will take place in late September.

Should they reject the amendments, the military council will immediately issue a constitutional decree as a temporary charter until parliamentary and presidential polls.

Elections would be pushed to December and early 2012 and the the army would remain in power until elections are held, security sources said.

Christians make up 10 per cent of Egypt’s population and some Coptic Christians have called for the scrapping of Article 2, which says Islam is the religion of the state and Islamic jurisprudence the main source of legislation.

Christians’ fears

Christians have voiced concern over the possibility that Islamists and the Brotherhood dominate parliamentary elections and have therefore called for a new constitution and more time to non-Islamic political forces to gather grassroots momentum.

“Anyone is free in one’s opinion but our role as those responsible for enlightenment we tell people that these amendments serve the brotherhood’s ideology,” said Father Metyas.

“I see we should say ‘No’ because such amendments are not valid to build a modern civil state, and that isn’t our opinion alone but also that of any moderate Egyptian who wants a civil state.”
 

‘First fruits of revolution’

Organisers say the ballot is among “the first fruits of the revolution” that overthrew the veteran strongman but critics are urging a “no” vote, saying the proposed amendments were drawn up too hastily and do not go far enough.

Yes Vote

                                           Mohsin Radi

Legal experts and opposition figures say that without a new constitution and the abolition of restrictions on the formation of political parties, Egypt may find itself once again with a president who has absolute powers and a pliant parliament.

The National Democratic Party (NDP), smaller opposition parties said by critics to be NDP fronts, and the Brotherhood, who have the experience to mobilise supporters for an early election favour the proposals.  The Brotherhood says it would take too long to draw up a new constitution. Mubarak’s former party, long used to winning by landslides, also says the changes will secure stability and bring about constitutional legitimacy.
The country’s military rulers have sketched out a tight six-month timetable to hold the referendum, elections for the upper and lower houses of parliament, a presidential vote and then another referendum for the new constitution.

“Voting for these changes is a step forward for the democracy sought by the Egyptians,” Mohsin Radi, a senior member of the group, said. “ These changes are like emergency surgery to put an end to the six-month transition period (declared by the military rulers). The Brotherhood wants more changes to curb the powers of the president. Still, plans to replace the current constitution with a new one within a year after the next parliamentary elections can fulfil our wishes,” he told this newspaper.

“We will vote for the changes on Saturday and urge people to vote for them too.”

No Vote

                                       Amr Mousa

While the amendments would limit presidents to two four-year terms and ensure judicial oversight of elections, critics say they would do nothing to curb sweeping executive powers that were the backbone of the deposed president Hosni Mubarak's autocratic system.

"Revolutions topple constitutions. This insistence on holding a constitutional referendum on a fallen document is like a doctor insisting on implanting organs into a corpse," said Zakaria Abdul Aziz, former head of the influential judges' club.

The changes would open up the race for the post that Mubarak held for 30 years. But opposition activists say accepting what they view as cosmetic alterations to the 1971 constitution implies granting it legitimacy, dishonouring the 18-day uprising that forced Mubarak to step down and hand over to the military.

"Keeping Mubarak's constitution, even temporarily, is an insult to the revolution," said presidential contender Mohammad Al Baradei, former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency. "Voting 'Yes' in the referendum resuscitates Mubarak's constitution resulting in a flawed parliament."

Amr Mousa, who is resigning as secretary-general of the Arab League to join the presidential race as front-runner, said he too would vote against the proposed amendments. Formally recognised secular opposition parties have put aside their squabbles to call for a new constitution. The leftist Tagammu Party, Ghad Party, Arab Democratic Nasserist Party, Democratic Front Party and Wafd all intend to vote no.

Changes to be put to voters

Following are the main changes to the currently suspended constitution:

• Article 75 The president must be an Egyptian of at least 40 years of age, with two Egyptian parents with no other nationality, and must not be married to a non-Egyptian. The amendment reinforces the existing nationality criteria.
• Article 76 Candidates for president must win the endorsement of 30 elected members of parliament; or that of 30,000 registered voters in 15 provinces with at least 1,000 from each one; or be nominated by a political party of which he or she is a member and which has at least one elected seat in parliament. The amendment eases the existing criteria but not enough for many critics.
• Articles 76 and 88 Ballot casting and counting would be directly and fully supervised by the judiciary. The amendment restores judicial supervision of the electoral process, which was scrapped in 2005 in a move critics say paved the way for fraud.
• Article 77: The president would serve a maximum of two four-year terms. Under the suspended constitution, a president could serve an unlimited number of six-year terms, a provision that cleared the way for Mubarak’s three decade reign.
• Article 139: The president would be required to appoint one or more vice presidents within 60 days of taking office. Mubarak avoided naming one until under pressure in the dying days of his presidency.
• Article 148: The declaration of a state of emergency by the president would be limited to six months. Any renewal would require a referendum. Mubarak enjoyed emergency powers almost continuously throughout his presidency.
• Article 179: The article, which gave the president the right to order military trials for civilians, would be scrapped. Supposedly intended for terrorism suspects, human rights watchdogs say the provision was widely abused.
• Article 189: The president or at least half the members of the two houses of parliament would be able to request the drawing up of a new constitution by a constituent assembly of 100 members which would then be put to a referendum. Previously only the president and the speaker could ask for amendments.