The House of Representatives is clearly ready to ratify all but very few of the 340 laws issued in the past two years. Anyway, the majority of these laws are difficult to reverse, or are not significant enough to merit review. But there are 10–15 laws that deserve a substantive debate, either due to their vital social importance (such as the civil service law), their negative repercussions on the economy (the investment law and the law on the Suez Gulf economic zone), or their infringement of the constitution (criminal laws restricting freedoms and civil society). I discussed these in detail last week so there's no need for a replay here. Nevertheless, the parliament's wholesale endorsement of so much legislation is worrying. It suggests the assembly is abandoning its constitutionally designated role of reviewing laws issued by the president. More worrying is that arguments made to approve legislation without any serious debate are based on three false assumptions. First, such appeals assume the constitution gave MPs only two choices: ratify the laws in whole or reject them in whole. If rejected, all their legal and economic consequences would be reversed. This, however, is a misinterpretation of Article 156 of the constitution, which gives the parliament a third option: reject a law and send it back to the assembly for discussion while retaining its effects, to avoid upsetting existing legal and economic rights arising from these laws. The constitution is crystal clear on this point, but this third option was disregarded to affirm the inevitable adoption of all the laws. The second assumption is that rejecting some presidential economic and social legislation will impede reform and suggest that the parliament doesn't appreciate the difficult economic circumstances. Some officials have even said that rejecting any economic law could hinder or preclude already agreed upon foreign aid and loans. This argument is unacceptable since the parliament has the sovereign power to legislate. The threatened loss of foreign financing is beside the point. In fact parliament must intervene to understand the conditions and restrictions of such funding, which have not been disclosed to the public. The third assumption is that a parliamentary review of the 340 laws issued from January 18, 2014 to January 9, 2016 is no more than a formal procedure necessary to satisfy constitutional requirements. There's no need to delve into the substance of the laws—that would cast doubt on the government and president who issued them. But this again is a highly misleading argument. The constitution is based on the balance of powers; and parliamentary oversight of the executive is part of such balance and is no insult to the executive. Otherwise, what's the need for a parliament? Many people who followed the first parliamentary sessions were troubled by the tumultuous proceedings, fearing the performance and credibility of the assembly would suffer in the future. I think it's still too early to judge a legislature of this size. Many of the more boisterous voices will soon calm down and be replaced by serious MPs striving after the public interest rather than the media spotlight. But this won't happen unless parliament reclaims its full legislative authority and insists on debating all submissions from the government with the required diligence and detail, refusing to bow to pressures, even those wrapped in concern for the tight deadline and the need to support the government. I hope the parliament wields its constitutional power of review—not to obstruct the economy, undermine international agreements, or question the competence of the executive - but to repeal several flawed, unconstitutional laws issued over the past two years and to restore the proper order of things, in which the parliament holds undisputed legislative power. The writer holds a PhD in financial law from the London School of Economics. He is former deputy prime minister, former chairman of the Egyptian Financial Supervisory Authority and former chairman of the General Authority for Investment. This article was published in Arabic in El-Shorouq newspaper on Monday, 18 January. http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/185699.aspx
