Egypt's Imperial Presidency

Egypt's ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) is holding its annual convention this week in Cairo. The event comes in the midst of a heated nation-wide debate over political reform. Central to the debate is a concerted demand by all opposition parties and civil society organizations (CSOs) to amend the 1971 Constitution; and put an end to the 23-years-old State of Emergency which was imposed in the aftermath of the assassination of President Anwar Sadat, back in October 6, 1981. These popular demands are not new, they have often been voiced. On the other hand, President Mubarak and his NDP have been consistently stone-walling since the mid-1980's. What makes the reform demands more pressing this time are the ominous developments taking place in Egypt, in the region, and in the world at large. At home, concern about President Mubarak's age (76) and deteriorating health, Egypt's sagging economic performance, high unemployment rate, and rampant corruption have driven a growing number of Egyptian youngsters to unprecedented despair. According to a recent report by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), as many as one half of Egyptians between 15 and 30 years of age dream of migrating to Europe, North America, or Australia. There are weekly reports of episodes of boats smuggling would?be illegal Egyptians migrants drowning off the North Mediterranean coast. A few weeks ago several youngsters suffocated to death while being deported in mass overloaded trucks back to Egypt across the Libyan desert. The incident caused a domestic uproar which compelled the authorities to arrest, interrogate, and try the Egyptian police officers who were in charge.

The ailing health of the Egyptian President has been widely rumored for several years, but never officially acknowledged until November 13, 2003, when it could no longer be covered up. On that day, while delivering the inaugural speech for the new Parliamentary session, President Mubarak fainted infront of the Assembly and millions of T.V viewers and was rushed from the podium for instant medical care. Though he returned an hour later, and delivered the rest of his speech, Egyptians began to demand greater transparency regarding the President's health as well as other State affairs. There was another popular uproar a few months later, when Egyptians learned from the Qatari T.V channel, al-Jazeera, that their President is being flown to Germany for an emergency cervical surgery. It was several hours later that the Egyptian State-controlled T.V and other media belatedly announced the same news, shortly after the Minister of Information, Mr. Safwat EL Sherif, was sacked in an attempt to pacify an outraged public opinion. The domestic pressure has been building up at a faster than usual tempo for major political reform.

The March of regional and international events since 9/11 has been a significant factor in emboldening the Egyptian opposition, not only to press for such reform, but to focus on the Constitutional amendments of those articles bearing on the Presidency. More than one half of living Egyptians were born after Mubarak assumed office some 23 years ago. He has been re-elected four times; and rumors have it that he will either seek a fifth 6-year term or groom his 41-years old son, Gamal to succeed him, in a manner similar to what occurred in the 2000 when son Bashar succeeded father Hafez al- Assad. Despite repeated disclaims, the last of which was January 1st, 2004 by President Mubarak himself, rumors about a "hereditary republic" and Gamal's eventual succession have persisted.

The opposition battle cry is No for re-election of Hosny Mubarak and No for passing the Presidency to his son. If asked, many Egyptians may not have any major misgivings vis-à-vis the son Gamal per se, it is rather the mortifying prospect that after 24 years of the father they may be stuck with another 24 or more years with the son, should the same Constitution continue without amendments, thereby allowing an endless re-election of the incumbent President. So what is wrong with that Constitution?

The present Constitution was passed in October 1971, and has 211 Articles, 30 of which have to do with the President. He is to be nominated by two-thirds of the People's Assembly, and endorsed in a popular plebiscite that allow only for simple "Yes" or "No." A simple majority of the ballots caste is required for assuming the office for a six-year term, renewable indefinitely by the same process. According to the Constitution (Articles 73-85, and 127-152), the President is the Head of State, Commander in Chief; officiates over the Supreme Judiciary Council, the Supreme Police Council, the Cabinet of Ministers, and can appoint one or more Vice President(s) and can terminate their stay in office at his sole discretion. He also appoints the Prime Minister, and the senior Ministers, and must approve all other ministers, ambassadors and other State representatives. He can call for general elections, declare war, impose a State of Emergency, and issues decrees that have the power of laws.

These and other prerogatives have no counter checks and balances whatsoever. To be sure there is a single Article (No. 85), which stipulates, "Accusation of the President of committing grand treason or any other criminal act may be made upon a motion submitted by at least one-third of members of the People's Assembly and approved by two-thirds. The President is then suspended from carrying on his duties, with the Vice-President filling in till the accusation is ruled on. The trial of the President is to be conducted before a special court, the formation and procedures of which are to be stipulated by a law which also determines the penalties should the accusations stand.

The problem with Article 85 is that neither the Law essential for its operationalization nor the appointment of a Vice-President has ever been enacted by Mubarak, despite repeated popular demands to do so for 24 years. The net result has been a de facto Imperial Presidency in Egypt. Some observers have likened Mubarak's to the God-King Pharaohs of Ancient Egypt. No other Head of State in modern times enjoys as much power.

The other analogy which is increasingly in vogue among Egyptian critics is the similarity of Mubarak to Brehznev, who presided over the Soviet Union from the mid-1960s to the early 1980's, and whose long tenure, the Soviet Union stood still, stagnated and then deteriorated from a super power to a second class power before it finally disintegrated in the late 1980's. In similar fashion, Egypt's status as a regional power under Mubarak's longer reign has steadily declined. On the Freedom House seven point Index, Egypt has retained the very poor score of 6 (at the lowest end of the partly free). Moreover, on the Transparency International Corruption Index (CPI), Egypt fell from the rank of 63 to that of 74 (more corrupt) during the same period. As a result of this deterioration, annual foreign investments have rapidly fallen from $3000 million in the mid-1990's to a minuscule $300 million in 2003. Thus an Imperial Presidency with neither accountability nor a decent level of performance has outraged even the generally apathetic Egyptian public opinion driving many to join the more organized opposition parties and NGOs.

The demands are now focused on making the selection of the Egyptian President by direct competitive elections from among two or more contenders, and for a period in office not exceeding two consecutive terms. An equally strong demand is for a curtailment of the current sweeping presidential powers, and the formulation of operative mechanisms for enforcing the accountability of all public officials without exception.

Should the 2004 NDP Convention fail in recommending Constitutional amendments to satisfy these urgent demands, more Egyptians will desert the regime and may even risk their lives in search of salvation in other lands.