Author: Hamad, Mahmoud
Date published: January 1, 2012
Journal code: ISTK
Egypt's new constitution will be the roadmap to a second republic that most Egyptians hope will be free from the tyranny, corruption, and nepotism, which were the trademarks of Egypt's political life since 1952. The problem, however, is the lack of agreement about the nature of the new constitution. There is a number of competing visions for Egypt's future: secular versus theocratic at one end of the scale and civic versus militaristic at the other. Islamists, liberals, and leftists will need to come to terms and find a middle ground for the new constitution to be drafted in the very short time stipulated. The generals and the politicians would need to come to agree upon the terms as well.
While many Egyptians want the new constitution to be a sharp departure from the shortcomings of its predecessor, the founding fathers of the new constitution ought to take stock of Egypt's rich constitutional history. Unlike most countries in the region with no or little constitutional history, Egypt has 130 years of constitutional experience. Egypt's first experiment with a modern constitution dates back to 1882. This first constitution abruptly ended with British occupation. During the 1919 Revolution, calls to return to constitutional life went hand-in-hand with demands for independence. The result was the 1923 Constitution, known in Egyptian discourse as the liberal constitution. The constitution established a division of power between the monarch and the elected parliament. While the constitution maintained many of his powers, King Fuad I grew weary of the constraints the constitution put on his authority and rescinded it in 1930 in favor of the much less-democratic 1930 Constitution. Popular pressure forced the king to reinstate the 1923 Constitution, which remained in effect until the July 23rd Revolution.
With the success of the Free Officers, Egypt entered into an era of constitutional uncertainty until the end of Nasser's reign in 1970. During this period, Egypt had three different constitutions (1956, 1958, and 1964) and six different constitutional proclamations. It is safe to say that legality received little attention from Nasser and his iegions. Egypt went through a much more stable constitutional cycle with Sadat's ascendency to power in 1970. He issued the 1971 (permanent) Constitution, which remained in effect until it was revoked in 2011. This constitution was amended on three different occasions: 1980, 2005, and 2007.
Since the removal of Mubarak, the air in Cairo is thick with political discussions about civil-military relations, the role of Islam in politics, and the nature of the state, including the powers of the presidency, the structure and composition of parliament, and the political role of the courts. These critical matters and many more are constantly debated in living rooms, coffee shops, and on national and international media. In the following paragraphs, I highlight the most important controversies that face the new constitution, shed light on the preferences of major political players, as well as providing some predictions on the constitutional future of Egypt. I argue that future of Egypt will depend on the level of political maturity the different parties show during the constitutional drafting process. If major forces within the state and society approach the process as a zero-sum game, this will lead to a deadlock and hinder the prospects of democratization and political stability. However, if these forces endeavor to expand common ground and reach compromise, Egypt will be able to set a shining example for the latecomers in the Arab spring.
Other than the role of defending the state, subsequent Egyptian constitutions included very little detail about the military's role in politics. The 1923 Constitution, for example, had only two brief articles about the armed forces that basically delegated military issues to legislation. Article 146 stated "The law shall organize the Armed Forces" and Article 147 read "The Law decide con