Partisan rather than national interests will determine Egypt's constitutional reform, writes Amr Hamzawy* After the political lull that followed the 2005 presidential and legislative elections the government and opposition are locking horns once again over constitutional reform. The National Democratic Party (NDP), opposition groups, and the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) offer divergent views over the kinds of constitutional reform needed. The one thing they have in common is that those views are more inspired by partisan considerations than any sense of public good. The NDP has three basic motives. It wants to end the protests created by the amendment last year of Article 76, the article that regulates the nomination of presidential candidates. It wants to prevent the MB from benefiting from any future amendment and is, therefore, seeking a constitutional way to restrict the group's parliamentary presence. It wants, too, to hold on to its hegemony over Egyptian political life. The NDP is proposing to amend Article 76 for the second time. As it stands, Article 76 requires presidential candidates to have the backing of five per cent of all electoral seats in the country, a percentage that only the NDP and the officially-banned MB met in the 2005 parliamentary elections. Because it doesn't want the next presidential elections to be uncontested the NDP has no option but to reduce the percentage or cancel it altogether. The NDP can also do what it did in the 2005 elections, which was to allow all parties to field a presidential candidate regardless of parliamentary representation. The parliamentary composition may change ahead of the next presidential elections, due in 2011. People's Assembly elections are slated for 2010, and mid-term Shura Council elections are due in 2007. It is unlikely, though, that any of the official political parties will secure five per cent of parliamentary seats. Because there is always a chance that presidential elections may have to take place before 2010 -- either due to unexpected circumstances or a systematic plan to transfer power from President Hosni Mubarak to a potential heir -- Article 76 will have to go. The NDP is also willing to change the electoral system from the current constituency-based winner-takes-all system to one of proportional representation through which parties would claim parliamentary seats according to their nationwide total of votes. The latter system would give impetus to opposition parties, which won only a handful of seats in the last elections, leaving the majority to be divided by the NDP and the MB. But the main aim of the amendment would be to diminish access to parliament by the MB, which has 88 seats in the current People's Assembly, or 20 per cent of the total. Had it not been for blatant interference by the security forces the figure would have been higher. Egyptian authorities are unlikely to recognise the MB or allow it to form a political party of its own. A party list system, which was applied briefly in the 1980s, would force the MB to enter into an alliance with one of the existing parties, which would limit the relative independence that the MB enjoyed under the winner-takes-all system. If it was forced to run on the lists of other parties, the MB would have to make concessions along the way. The party list system would provide the NDP with the added advantage of driving a wedge between the MB and other parties. Over the past two years the MB has been to some extent coordinating its policies with other opposition parties in the hope of pressuring the NDP into introducing reforms. A change in the electoral procedure would pit the MB against the opposition parties, and could even bring about a rapprochement between those parties and the NDP. In other words, a change in the election system could leave the MB bereft of allies. The NDP is dodging real reforms by focussing on form and matters that would not change the nature of its political hegemony. It is not contemplating a peaceful rotation of power or a separation of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. The NDP says it is willing amend constitutional provisions regulating the relationship between the president and the prime minister, so as to give the latter greater executive power but the prime minister will continue to be appointed, and dismissed, by the president, who doesn't have to answer to anyone in this regard. Worse still, the NDP Policies Committee, which is in charge of constitutional reforms, still refuses to look into different articles, especially Article 77, which allow the president to stay in office for life and overrule legislative and judiciary procedures through decrees that have "the power of law". The NDP controls the manner in which parties are created and operate. It places stringent conditions on the operation of non-governmental organisations. It tries to limit judicial supervision of elections. And it has clamped down on those judges who spoke out for the independence of the judiciary. This shows the NDP is bent on keeping the multi-party system, first introduced in the 1970s, weak and ineffective. Opposition parties, for their part, remain politically dependent on the NDP's goodwill. And most seem to focus on narrow interests rather than broader national objectives. The Wafd, Tagammu, and Nasserist parties want the constitution to be amended in a democratic manner. The Wafd even calls for a new constitution to be written. But all of these continue to seek a modicum of agreement with the NDP in the hope that this will allow them a wider margin of political freedom. The opposition parties would thus support the introduction of the party list system which would allow them to regain some of the ground they lost to the MB. Meanwhile, the MB says it cannot be cowed or pressured. It has been calling on the NDP to introduce democratic reform, establish checks and balances, and uphold political and civil freedom. But the MB knows from recent experience that it is no match for the repressive power of the state. And it is careful to avoid a head-on confrontation with the regime that may cost it its organisational unity and grassroots connections. As things stand, the opposition parties are resigned to a situation that is so authoritarian it leaves them with little room for wriggling. The upcoming constitutional amendments will not bring about a qualitative change in Egyptian political life nor true economic reform. The cost of authoritarian rule remains low. With the NDP wizards infinitely adapting its strategies and the opposition is taking no risks in the face of a coercive status quo, a major breakthrough is unlikely. * The writer is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
