Rather than excluding religious forces, Egypt's constitutional amendments aim at regulating, for the benefit of all, the religious and the political, writes Mohamed Kamal* The relation between religion and politics is one of the main obstacles facing the political reform process today. The challenges of the relationship are not the outcome of the recent political opening; its root causes can be traced back to the founding of Egypt's modern political system. The American historian Nadav Safran wrote about this issue in his renowned book Egypt in Search of Political Community. He argued that the development of Egypt's political life was adversely affected due to an absence of consensus on the nature of the relation between religion and the state. In recent months, this issue has come to light once again with heated debate on constitutional amendments, specifically pertaining to the amendment of Article 1 -- which bases the political system on the principle of citizenship -- and Article 5 -- which prohibits the formation of parties and/or the conduct of political activities on a religious basis. While some welcomed the amendments as evidence of the civil nature of the state and the preservation of equality, others considered them a device used by the state to marginalise religion in society and to exclude certain groups from being part of the political system. This discrepancy of opinion results from the lack of clearly defined rules distinguishing what falls within the realm of religion and what constitutes political activity. Many countries have straightforward rules regulating the relation between religion and state. In democracies, the rules of the game can be found either in the constitution and law, or they develop through practice. The goal of regulation is to uphold the civil and democratic nature of the political system. Although recent debate over the constitutional amendments was healthy and much-needed, dialogue should be sustained in society until a consensus is reached on how to best balance the relation between religion and state. The political reform process in Egypt would benefit greatly from the existence of unambiguous rules -- accepted by all political forces -- framing and informing that relationship. Several clarifications should be made, I believe, on the vision and goals behind Egypt's constitutional amendments. The intent of the constitutional amendments was not to minimise the role of religion in society, nor was their purpose to adopt a secular orientation. Such a discourse would not suit Egypt. Religion is a major part in the lives of the Egyptian people, Muslim and Christian. The constitution itself safeguards the role of religion in more than one article, notably in Article 46, which asserts, "the state shall guarantee the freedom of religion," and in Article 2, which states "Islam is the state religion... and Sharia is the main source of legislation." Enshrining the principle of citizenship espoused in the newly passed amendments does not negate the existing articles of the constitution safeguarding the role of religion. It simply ensures that all Egyptian citizens have equal rights and duties regardless of gender, ethnicity or religion. Additionally, the constitutional amendments were not meant to keep out any political players. Rather, the goal was to integrate different forces into the political system and to regulate their relations with religion through a concise set of rules. These rules ban any group from monopolising religious discourse and using it to achieve its self- serving political goals. The amendments prohibit the transformation of political debate into a religious contest based on faith and absolute truth, the result of which could only be inequality among political opponents and political gains for contenders raising religious slogans and losses across the board for candidates from civil or liberal parties. The ban on forming political parties on a religious basis in Egypt is not new; it has been clearly asserted in the political parties law for some time. The law also stipulates that a party must not be a branch of a foreign political group, or prone to organising militias. Furthermore, the constitution clearly spells out what many in the political leadership have already stated: Egypt will adopt an electoral system that will protect the right of independent candidates to run in parliamentary elections, even if that system relies solely on a proportional representation list. The electoral system will guarantee the right of any political group to field its candidates in elections. Turkey's experience -- worthy of study in the Islamic world -- is a good example of the regulation of religion and politics. The country managed to integrate all domestic political forces into the political system according to an explicit set of rules guiding the relation between politics and religion. If a group decides to play outside these rules, they are disqualified. Article 2 of the Turkish constitution asserts the civil and democratic nature of the state, while Article 68 prohibits the formation of parties on a religious basis, or on a basis that violates the civil character of the state or promotes inequality. Article 69 empowers the Turkish state prosecutor to request that the Supreme Court permanently dismantle any party violating these articles, going as far as banning persons who break the rules from forming other parties for five years. By clearly defining the rules of party formation, Turkish political parties had room to flourish while the state had the necessary tools to assertively intervene when any breaches of this common set of rules occurred. To be sure, the Turkish Supreme Court has dismantled several parties on this basis. More importantly, this regulation forced political groups that had a religious disposition to develop their ideas and programmes as a pre-condition to full political integration. As a result, today in Turkey, the philosophical basis and programmes of so-called Islamist parties are dramatically different from the political thought and practices of Islamist groups in Egypt. A closer look at the programme of the Turkish Development and Justice Party shows the extent of the disparity. Drawing lessons from Turkey as a case study does not necessarily mean that Egypt should blindly follow the same path. While there are clear differences in the socio-economic, historical and political conditions extant in Turkey and Egypt, the goal is to highlight the benefit of regulating the relation between religion and politics, noting the positive impact that has had on political life in Turkey. The first lesson is of the necessity of reaching, via consensus amongst differing political groups, a clearly defined set of rules for governing the relation between religion and politics and empowering the state to uphold the agreed upon framework. The second lesson is found in the positive development of ideas and programmes by Islamist groups, leading to a willingness to play by the rules of the political game agreed to by the majority. Without that acceptance, there can be no integration of these groups into the political system. Finally, it is safe to say that as a society we still need more dialogue on this central issue. While the regulation of the relation between religion and politics will not resolve itself overnight, and constitutional articles and the law cannot settle it alone, political will from all the concerned parties is necessary to reach consensus. * The writer is a professor of political science at Cairo University and member of the Shura Council.
