owers equivalent to those of the prime minister in the British system and to those of the president of the French Fifth Republic."9 Nathan J. Brown put it nicely, when he assessed the 1971 Constitution: "The result was a document that promised a little bit to everybody - but everything to the presidents."10
Other than the widespread of the old oppressive regime, there is no agreement about the future of the country. politicians, and activists have ent opinions about which system government will be most suited achieve the dual objectives of maintaining liberty and ensuring stability. Would Egypt continue to function as a presidential system, something along the lines of the US model? Would it move into a Westminster form of government? Or would it create a semi-presidential system similar to France?
Each proposition has its merits and supporters. It appears that the generals in the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces are well disposed to some form of continuity of the presidential system of government. Statements by SCAF members repeatedly indicated, "Egypt is a presidential system. " Some argued that the generals believe they have a better chance influencing the choice for the presidency than the parliament which Islamist groups are likely to dominate. Many in Egypt suspect that the SCAF will try to sway popular sentiments toward a candidate with a military background or at least someone who is friendly to the military establishment. The SCAF also might find comfort in the division of powers between the executive and the legislative branches that a presidential system creates. Among this camp also there are a number of secular forces that hope a strong presidency could provide a counterbalance to the Islamist majority in parliament.
On the other end of the spectrum, the FJP, the largest party in the new People's Assembly, advocates the creation of a full parliamentary constitution, where the president would have symbolic or limited powers. The main powers would be concentrated in the hands of the prime minister who commands the majority in parliament; "Our manifesto believes that the parliamentary system (in the long term) is most suited to the conditions of the country."11
In between these two ideal types, some argue for a middle-of-the-road alternative. The semi-presidential system will empower the parliamentary majority to select a government accountable before it but will entrust the president with some real powers. One idea is to follow the division of power in France during cohabitation where the presidency controls foreign affairs and the cabinet takes charge of domestic policies.
It is my understanding that a form of semi-presidential system is likely to prevail at least in the short run. It would be rather hard to completely depart from the age-long tradition of presidential power perceived as a guarantee for stability. Nevertheless, it will also be difficult to maintain the imperial Pudency with its history of despotism untouched. Even the strong advocates of parliamentary government admit that the sorry state of affairs inherited from 60 years of repressive governments mandate a delay in embarking on full-fledged Westminster type of government. The FJP manifesto, while clearly favoring such an arrangement, maintained "However, the most fitting system for Egypt during this transitory period in the parliamentary-presidential system. "12 In this, there is an agreement between the FJP and its sharp critics. The Egyptian Social Democratic Party manifesto argues for:
Establishing a mixed presidential-parliamentary system as the most fitting for the current affairs of the country. The unrestrained presidential system will reconstruct the concentration of power in an authoritarian presidency, while the parliamentary system under the current conditions might lead to political instability because of the decades of the absence of party and political life.13
Related to this is the discussion of presidential term, which carries political and symbolic significance because presidents tend to accumulate more powers with longe