Instead of encouraging freedoms, suggested amendments to the constitution will be a further clampdown on personal liberties according to the opposition. Gihan Shahine finds out why President Hosni Mubarak recently stated that new laws issued this year would improve democracy and abolish Egypt's 25- year state of emergency, but the opposition described suggested constitutional amendments as merely "cosmetic". Mubarak proposed amendments to 34 articles in the Constitution last month, aiming at "consecrating the people's sovereignty as a source of power and giving parliament more authority to monitor the government". The amendments are still being drafted, but are already disappointing some opposition members like Diaaeddin Dawoud, the leader of the Nasserist Party. "Amending the constitution is not an individual task," asserted Dawoud. "It is a collective job that needs the participation of all experts and should not be monopolised by the government, or the ruling party." Hussein Abdel-Razek, secretary-general of the leftist Tagammu Party, said that most of the amendments suggested so far are "marginal and tricky". For opposition MP Mohamed Mustafa Sherdy, assistant editor-in-chief of the daily Al-Wafd newspaper, the amendments may "meet some of the demands of the opposition, but definitely not all. The devil is in the details". Although amending the Constitution has always been high on the agenda of the opposition, Abdel-Razek feels that the draft suggested by the president so far "does not actually attain the prime target of those amendments, namely switching from an autocratic to a democratic regime". Articles 76 and 77 of the Constitution, which regulate presidential elections and presidential terms of office, remain a bone of contention. "The new amendments do not actually limit the powers of the president, or end his monopoly over all legislative, judicial and executive authorities," a disenchanted Abdel-Razek told Al-Ahram Weekly. "Nor do they discuss presidential terms of office." Although the amendments propose that the president consult the cabinet on some of his mandates, many critics are dissatisfied that this only applies to some marginal roles and decisions which are typically drafted by the government and approved by the president. There is almost complete consensus among the opposition that Article 77 should revert to its pre- 1980 original form, which states that the president should not remain in office for more than two consecutive terms. Currently, the article does not stipulate a term limit for the president. Judicial independence and oversight of parliamentary elections is also a major source of dispute. According to Abdel-Razek, the planned amendments suggest dismantling the Higher Council for Judicial Boards and creating a new council, comprised of heads of judicial boards and chaired by the president himself. "This would immediately take us back to square one," scoffed Abdel-Razek. More important, perhaps, are the amendments to Article 88 which recommend that elections be held on one day, while judicial supervision would only be found at general committees. This is a major source of concern for the opposition, with critics warning against rescinding judicial supervision over all polling stations since it would allow more vote rigging and corruption. "It is the first time in history that a constitution stipulates that polls be held on one day," retorted Abdel-Razek. "It means that elections will be a complete farce." An optimistic Sherdy, however, vowed that the Wafd Party will not allow "anybody to underplay the judiciary's role, not only in elections but also in human rights-related issues," he insisted. This includes articles related to the new terrorism law, which is slated to replace the Emergency Law. New articles propose that suspects be arrested, investigated and monitored without judiciary supervision, approval or search warrants. "This means anybody is subject to arrest at anytime, which is a further clampdown on personal freedoms and civil rights," according to the Tagammu's secretary-general. Wafd's Sherdy agreed, slamming the amendment as "embedding Emergency Law in the Constitution". He feels that this change would "take us a step backwards and jeopardise the essence of the Constitution". But again, Sherdy asserted that his party will "maintain a loud voice, and fight to preserve human rights aspects of the Constitution to ensure continued judicial supervision of allegations and arrests". On a brighter note, many in the opposition concede that there are some positive elements in the amendments suggested by the president. These include instilling values of citizenship and equality among Egyptians regardless of religion, race or ethnicity; purging any remainders of the socialist and leftist legacy; granting more power to the prime minister and parliament; and increasing the quota of female members of parliament. Many opposition members, including the leader of Tagammu Rifaat El-Said, also approve of amendments to Article 5, banning any political activity based on religion. But El-Said's co-party member Abdel-Razek feels there was no actual need to amend this article, since political party laws already ban the establishment of any political party based on religion or gender. He believes that including a term about equal citizenship would not actually change much in reality, while Sherdy asserted that increasing the quota of women is useless unless there are other tools to empower those women in decision making. For Abdel-Razek, however, the only major positive amendment is granting parliament the authority to change the budget without approval from the government. He sees the future of democracy in Egypt in a mostly dim light: "The current autocratic regime is likely to persist, and none of these few positive changes will make a difference," he concluded.
