Dialogues of Naguib Mahfouz: A new constitution wanted By Mohamed Salmawy Mahfouz: Whenever I see people wrangling over one law or another, I become more convinced that we need a new constitution, one that lays down the ground rules for everyone, journalists and judges included. Salmawy: You expect us to agree on a new constitution, even though we quarrel endlessly over every single law? Mahfouz: The constitution doesn't need to address exact policies, but simply set the ground rules. It is hard to differ on the rules. Let's say we agreed on the freedom of expression and then a law comes up that restricts that freedom. In that case the new law would be deemed unconstitutional, and a court of law would reverse it. And should a decision be passed to ban a book or a film, a court of law may well look into the constitutionality of such a decision. If it finds it unconstitutional, then it would rescind it. In either case, we would be spared the wrangling. We don't need to struggle every single time. Salmawy: Our latest battle was about the imprisonment of journalists relative to publishing offences. Mahfouz: With a constitution that says categorically that imprisonment is not the right punishment for publishing offences, the battle would have ended before it started. No country in the world -- aside from a handful with no claim to democracy whatsoever -- imprisons journalists. The time and energy we've spent on the publication law should have been used in rewriting the constitution so as to ban the spectre of imprisonment for publication offences. This issue is at the heart of democracy. It is a measure of how democratic any political regime is. We're not talking here of journalists' rights, but the rights of society as a whole. You can give an interview to a newspaper, or write a novel, and find yourself in prison. Even someone writing to the op-ed piece can end up in prison. I am pleased President Hosni Mubarak has intervened in person to alter this particular article that could have damaged our reputation. I've never heard of a law that prevents journalists from discussing the personal wealth of government officials. I've never heard of a country where journalists cannot criticise foreign leaders. The US press attacks the US president routinely, why cannot we? The Israeli press says what it wants about President Mubarak, and our journalists certainly have the right to harangue Israeli officials. Furthermore, how can you expect journalists to refrain from discussing the finances of public officials? The personal finances of private citizens don't matter much to the public. Private people answer to the law, but public officials have to answer to the public. The press is entitled to bring up such matters, so long as it does so in an objective manner. We've had our share of sensationalism, and I believe the readers expect responsible and objective coverage.
