the pretext that this would make the assembly more representative and balance the impact of Islamists' success at the polls.3 The FJP, which most analysts believe will emerge as the largest party in the new parliament, pulled its representatives out of the Advisory Council. The Generals recoiled, at least for the time being. Major General Mamdouh Shahin, the SCAF chief legal advisor, went on record to maintain that the advisory council, the government or the SCAF will have no role in selecting members of the constituent assembly and this recent controversy was put to rest.4
It is quite certain that generals are keen to create a constitutional system that mirrors the Turkish constitutional arrangements before the democratization reforms in recent years, initiated partly under the incentives created by the EU process. Under such arrangements, the army command in collaboration with their allies in other state institutions like the Supreme Constitutional Court, their protégées in the media, and 'friendly' political parties can influence the electoral contestation process. Toward this, the generals have been trying to engineer the establishment of puppet political parties and sought to coax a fractured parliament with no single party commanding anything near a majority.5
In a telling statement, General Shaheen offered a glimpse into the military's mindset, when he declared: "We want a model similar to that found in Turkey . . . Egypt, as a country, needs to protect democracy from the Islamists, because we know that these people do not think democratically." 6 Ironically, this is the same worn out Justification that has been incessantly churned out by Mubarak, Ben Ali, and other Arab dictators to legitimize despotism and tyranny for decades. Incidentally, what the army legal advisor intended by the "Turkish model" was not its latest version, but the pre-AKP model that undermined Turkish democracy for decades.7
In any case, it is unlikely that the generals will give up altogether their efforts to influence the process of constitutional writing. The generals are expected to try to sway the selection of the constituent assembly, the procedures the assembly will apply, and the final draft of the constitution to maintain their institutional power. The issue of civil -military relations is not settled. The levels of influence the generals envisage for themselves, however, seem to be larger than what most Egyptians are willing to accept. Arguably, nevertheless, complete civilian control over the armed forces similar to consolidated democracies will have to wait. What is likely to emerge is a constitution that enshrines a high degree of institutional autonomy for the armed forces but maintain some control mainly through the presidency.
Religion and the State
The Egyptian society is a very homogeneous society. Roughly 99.6% belong to the same ethnicity (Arab) and about 90% subscribe to the same religion (Islam). Coptic Christians comprise 9% of the population and other Christians make up the last 1%. Muslims and Christians coexisted peacefully for most of Egypt's history. Religious tensions started to surface in the late 1970s. While national unity proved exemplary during the long struggle against Mubarak with Christians protecting Muslims during Friday prayers and Muslims shielding Christians during mass, many unfortunate instances of religious strife erupted since the fall of Mubarak. These religious tensions highlighted the role religion plays in the society and brought religion to the locus of the debate about citizens' rights and liberties in the new constitution.
Egyptian constitutions prior to 1971 rarely devoted much attention to the role religion plays in the state. The first constitution of Egypt in 1882 was silent about religion altogether. Article 149 of the 1923 Constitution maintained that "Islam is the religion of the state, the Arabic language is its official language." Surprisingly, this principle came under Part 6: General Rules, and seems to be an afterthought rather than an integral component of the constitution. Th