itutional practices:
* Entrusting the military to "defend constitutional legitimacy" implies a constitutional right to intervene in the political processes, as the generals deem fit to 'correct' the deviations of elected civilians.
* Giving the SCAF exclusive oversight over the defense budget and conceivably all military appointments outside the oversight of the nation's elected politicians.
* Giving SCAF a veto over legislation related to the military and declaration of war.
To achieve these objectives, the Communiqué sought to control the composition and functions of the 100-member constituent assembly. The al-Selmi Communiqué sought to strip the parliament off this vital task. According to this plan, MPs will comprise only twenty percent of the constituent assembly, with the remaining members chosen from the ranks of judges, university professors, the Coptic Church, al-Azhar, labor unions, and an array of other state-controlled institutions.
The generals and their advisors wanted such arrangements to lead to one of the following three outcomes. First, the appointed members of the constituent assembly by virtue of their sheer majority will be able to subdue the electedmembers. The end result would have been a constitution that reflects the interests and aspirations of the military establishment. Second, the constituent assembly reaches a deadlock with the committee unable to agree on a draft. If the committee fails to reach an agreement on a draft of the new constitution within six months, the Communiqué granted the SCAF the authority to name a new committee of its own choosing. The only commonsensical outcome of such a handpicked committee is a document that is highly favorable to the generals. Third, the Communiqué grants the generals what is equivalent to a veto power. The Communiqué mandated that should the proposed constitution contains articles that flout the constitutional declarations (issued by SCAF), the constituent assembly is obliged to revise them or the SCAF can refer the unsettled matters to the regime-dominated Supreme Constitutional Court, which will issue a binding judgment.
Regardless of which scenario was likely to take place, the only possible outcome was a constitution that is made in the generals' image. A Constitution that enshrines the army as a state within if not above the state and restricts the role religion plays in the polity and society. Naturally, this flagrant infringement was met with overwhelming opposition. The Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), the political wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, and other Islamist parties alongside many leftists, nationalists, and some liberal parties called for another million-man march in Tahrir Square on Friday November 18th. Hundreds of thousands of protestors poured into the square and other Egyptian cities in show of force unmatched since the early days of the January 25m Revoiution.
After the protest ended, scores of the Revolution's victims and their families an supporters decided t0 camp in Tahrir to draw attention to their suffering. The generals ordered the security forces and the army to violently break the sit-in. Many were outraged by the regime's brutality and came in large numbers to defend the square. A weeklong violent clash between the protesters and the police forced the SCAF to abandon the controversial proposal and to relieve al-Selmi from his post but not before several dozen protesters were killed and hundreds were injured. These decisions helped to calm the street for the first round of the elections, which took place with great fan fare and high turnout. After the Islamist parties' strong showing in the first round of the elections, the generals established a-thirty-member Advisory Council, yet another attempt to sell old wine in new bottle.
In a press brief to foreign correspondents in Cairo, SCAF member Major General Mukhtar Mulla stated again that the ruling junta would have the final say on the constitution. He also seemed to hint that the new Advisory Council would play a role in the selection of the constituent assembly, on 