Ramrod
Yesterday’s forced-march approval of Egypt’s draft constitution by its rump constituent assembly bodes ill.
If there is anything constitution-making experts agree on, it is the need for a consensual and inclusive process in drafting and approving a new constitution. This is often far more important than the specific language and provisions. Usually a fairly small portion of any given constitutional draft is contested. But when it comes to those provisions that raise the hackles of one group or another in the society, it is vital that they be involved and that there be a search for consensus, which can only be obtained by broad participation in a deliberative and transparent process.
Egyptian President Morsi decided instead to ramrod the draft through, before the Egyptian constitutional court could intervene to dissolve the constituent assembly as it had the lower house of parliament. Most of the secularists and minorities who were in the constituent assembly have already left in protest earlier in the process. Morsi claims he is accelerating approval by the mostly Islamist rump in order to end any need for him to retain the dictatorial powers he gave himself last week.
This is bizarre and circular logic. It amounts to saying:
I gave myself dictatorial powers. Now to prevent me from using them you have to accelerate approval of the constitution and accept the draft that I want. Then I can give up the dictatorial powers, because the constitution gives me what I really need.
Morsi plays this game because he fears two things: the “remnants” of the Mubarak dictatorship, especially in the judiciary, and the liberal secularists, who are uniting with minorities and others for what I imagine will be massive demonstrations today. Rather than bringing them into the tent, Morsi has chosen to keep them out. Their massive demonstrations won’t count for much if Morsi wins his bet by putting the new constitution to a quick referendum and getting it approved.
The merits and demerits of the new constitution are not really the issue. It will take time to evaluate them. Early reports suggest it does not protect women’s or minority rights as fully as the secularists would like. The role of Sharia as the main source of law is the nominally the same as it was under the little applied Mubarak constitution, but with some indication that it will be applied more vigorously. Presidential and military powers are greater than many would like.
But Egypt is not going back to Mubarak-style dictatorship. That would be an optimistic view. The real risk is continuing chaos, economic breakdown, social division and eventual theocracy aimed at establishing law and order. Morsi has opened a door to hell, but it is also the door to Muslim Brotherhood heaven. Those who thought Egypt was back because it brokered what is likely to be a short-lived ceasefire between Hamas and Israel are likely to be disappointed. The transition ahead for Egypt is still a long and difficult one. And where it ends up–democracy or theocracy–is still uncertain.
PS: For a knowledgeable view of the human rights provisions of the constitution, see Egypt: New Constitution Mixed on Support of Rights.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
One thought on “Ramrod”
Comments are closed.
RSS - Posts
I have taught logic for over 25 years, and am still baffled by how people come up with these things. Where is the ‘bizarre and circular logic’ in the argument displayed? Come to think of it, just what argument is that passage supposed to represent?
Circularity is harder to identify than you might think. After all, an old but not worthless definition of a VALID argument is that ‘the conclusion is contained in the premises’.