FEBRUARY 05 NEWSLETTER
[back to newsletter page]

Is Constitutional Reform in the Offing?

In mid-February, many prominent Egyptian opposition leaders, intellectuals, and civil society activists partook in a conference dealing with constitutional reform, organized by the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights. While constitutional reform has been on the agenda of Egyptian political activists for several decades, the issue became more salient and urgent in light of the upcoming 2005 presidential and parliamentary elections. Most participants agreed that the 1971 Constitution currently in effect is no longer adequate in preserving public interest.

The constitution accords the President wide ranging powers. It reflected the socialist ideology and the one- party system which lasted in Egypt until the late seventies. The introduction of a multi-party system in 1976, followed in the late 1980s by a shift to a free market economy, has rendered the constitution archaic. The present popular demand for political reform has raised the need to curb the extensive powers given to the president in the 1971 Constitution and also allow for direct competitive elections for the presidential office.

Dr. Ali Al-Din Hilal, former Minister of Youth and representative of the National Democratic Party, stood in opposition to the general consensus. Pointing to the many positive aspects of the present constitution, he maintained that debating a new constitution embodying comprehensive changes could be a highly destabilizing enterprise at these critical times. He also claimed that it is highly dubious that altering the constitution will solve any of the country's major problems such as its "social imbalance" and its high unemployment rate. Ahmed Rashidi, a professor of International Law at Cairo University, supported Hilal's argument by saying that the 1971 Constitution is the best in modern Egyptian history and that the kind of structural change which Egypt needs will not occur as a result of reforming the constitution. These arguments, however, closely match those advanced by the regime in order to postpone reform.

Salah Issa, the editor-in-chief of Cairo Magazine, taking a moderate position in between that of the opposition and the government, argued that the regime is not the sole party responsible for the lack of constitutional reform. He claimed that while the different political currents all demand change, they have not formulated explicit, clear agendas and demands since each has its own fears and apprehensions from any change to the status quo. The leftists are afraid from the abolition of the public sector, the nationalists are afraid that weakening the executive branch would weaken Egypt's international position, the Islamists are afraid from further secularizing the state, and the Copts are afraid that any democratic changes might bring more power to the Islamists. Salah Issa believes that only a national popular movement has the capacity of putting genuine pressure on the government to reform the constitution, but he did not suggest any concrete steps that would render the establishment of such a national popular front feasible, given the widespread ideological differences among the various political forces.