If the constitution needs amending, so be it. Full democracy is the prize being sought, writes Galal Nassar The most distinguishing feature of democratic societies is the ability of their constitutions to adapt to the changing pace of modern life. This is what makes these constitutions valid and worthwhile. Imagine how distressful it is to have to live under a rigid, unchanging constitution. The purpose of constitutions is to regulate the way any society acts; that is, to lay down the ground rules for all members of that society. Constitutions regulate the relation between ruler and citizen and also the way various authorities interact. One may say that all aspects of society should be conducted in accordance with a written constitution. Therefore, any reform should begin with revising the articles of the constitution. There is nothing wrong with that, and we mustn't be afraid of amending it. Many countries are currently revising their constitutions. According to constitutional law experts, at least 70 per cent of constitutions worldwide will be revised over the next five years. Some articles will be abolished and others will be brought into being. This is an inevitable outcome of the fast pace of modern life. As new situations emerge, domestically and internationally, constitutions will have to change to adapt to new political, economic and social needs. In Egypt, there has been talk about imminent and major constitutional amendments. In the weeks following the parliamentary elections, I met a number of judges and counsellors who were working on possible amendments. Parties, national groups and civil society have formed a number of committees of experts. Each group has its own version of the optimal constitutional amendments. Some even want to rewrite the entire constitution, arguing that it is no longer valid or practical. Why do some people want the constitution to be entirely rewritten? The fact is that the current constitution, written in 1971, is unable to cope with Egypt's needs and aspirations for democracy. At the time the constitution was written, Egypt was a country guided by socialist ideals. Many clauses in the constitution are inspired by these ideas, especially those that refer to public property and the public sector -- things that are no longer so relevant to our needs. Theoretically speaking, all of the privatisation and investment laws we have now are unconstitutional. Furthermore, the constitution does not allow for effective checks and balances. It gives the executive branch extensive powers, and then endows the president with more powers than the government. The prime minister has no powers to mention under the current constitution. The constitution is full of shortcomings, or what legal experts call "constitutional defects". For example, the president is not answerable to parliament, unlike the prime minister. Indeed, the prime minister is answerable for decisions that may have been taken by the president -- the latter being the real head of the executive branch. I was pleased to hear the president mention the need for checks and balances and oversight. He referred to the need for some presidential authority to be transferred to the prime minister. This would address a serious constitutional defect, for it would make the prime minister credibly accountable for the actions of the government. This is a much-needed step, for we cannot have democracy when authorities overlap. In the US, there is a balance between the authority of Congress and that of the president. According to constitutional law specialists, the president has a number of powers that need to be trimmed in future constitutional amendments. The current constitution contains three articles that give the president powers overlapping with those of the government. One is Article 74, which is borrowed from French laws. According to that article, the president is entitled, in cases of threats to state security or national unity, to take urgent measures, address the nation, and conduct a referendum on the measures he has taken within 60 days. Article 108 gives the president power to issue laws through a mandate obtained from two-thirds of the members of parliament, as well as power to issue decisions having the force of law. Article 147 gives the president power to issue decisions having the force of law during parliamentary recess, so long as parliament is allowed to review these laws at a later date. Let's now move from the power of the president to the power of the people. Many in this country, including myself, agree on the need to amend the article that allocates 50 per cent of parliamentary seats to workers and peasants. This clause has not achieved its purpose in the past. The definition of workers and peasants is so vague that many have wrongfully but successfully pretended to belong to these categories. I have read some of the studies and statistics that are based on the parliament's records, and these show parliamentarians representing workers and peasants to have consistently voted against the interests of their presumed constituencies. As we stand at the threshold of constitutional amendments, we need to discuss the shape of the regime and state we wish to have. We need to make sure that the amendments would live up to our expectations and not be a hindrance to true democracy. I, for one, believe that the parliamentary republic is the best system at this moment in the history of Egypt and the region. We need true participation by all societal strands and authorities. We need checks and balances. We need transparency and accountability. We need a government and parliament that are elected directly. We need to make our citizens the ultimate source of authority and legislation. Egyptian society has for years suffered from authoritarianism. The absence of parliamentary oversight has contributed to the spread of corruption, neglect and repression. Poverty and unemployment are widespread. And health, education and social services leave much to be desired. Our society was on the verge of imploding during some of the grinding crises we've experienced of late. The democratic revival has started and must go on, for democracy is the answer to our problems.
