Annulling the emergency law is dangerous if the problems for which it was enacted remain unaddressed, writes Abdel-Moneim Said My position on the emergency law has always rested on what I believe should be our most crucial considerations. The foremost is that terrorism is the chief threat to our country's security as well as to its prospects for progress and democratic transition. Democracy can only thrive in a country that is safe and free of the fear of political groups that take up arms in the name of various causes, defy the authority of the state and challenge its right to monopolise the use of force in order to defend the nation against its enemies at home and abroad. During the recent debates over the emergency law in the People's Assembly and elsewhere one could not help but to feel alarmed that the majority of those opposed to extending the law seemed blind to the primary reason for its existence. It was as if they had entirely forgotten that terrorists assassinated our last president and, in the course of the past three decades, mounted a series of vicious attacks that claimed around 1,400 lives, wrought incalculable damage, and took an enormous toll on Egyptian morale. More curious yet was that the detractors gave the impression that they thought that the fight against terrorism was purely an invention on the part of the Egyptian government, in spite of the fact that the daily headlines constantly inform us that virtually every other country in the world has a terrorist problem to deal with, that bombs are going off in bus stations in Moscow, that explosions in crowded public places reap dozens of lives a day in Pakistan and Iraq, that a commercial airplane narrowly escaped a suicide bombing attempt on its way to Detroit and that a booby-trapped car was defused at the last moment before detonating in Times Square in New York. Moreover, some of those calling for the emergency law to be lifted and who use it as a pretext for vilifying the Egyptian authorities actually support perforating Egypt's borders with tunnels that are used for smuggling arms, drugs and terrorists. To hear their arguments one might think that the bombings of Taba, Sharm El-Sheikh and Dahab were episodes in mere television dramas. Secondly, the extension of the emergency law offers testimony to the fact that the state and society have failed to combat terrorism (i.e. they could not prevent extremists from perpetrating violence and terror in the name of Islam) by other means. Our security agencies have, at times rightfully and at other times wrongfully, come under heavy fire for their insistence upon the perpetuation of this law and their use of it. Nevertheless, it is surprising that no one has raised the question as to why they have taken this stance or raised the simultaneous question as to what the institutions of civil society -- such as political parties and the media -- have been doing to combat terrorism. Terrorism is a phenomenon that is born in the heart and mind. Terrorists are not driven by rancour or envy to murder individuals or groups; they are driven by a perverted creed to perform suicide bombings, or to martyr themselves, in their language, in order to save society from evil and secure their own salvation and place in paradise. Many Egyptians are aware that thousands of such individuals are spread across Afghanistan, Iran, Yemen, Sudan, Britain and other European and Asian countries waiting for the moment to pounce against other societies and until the time arrives to invade Egypt, or "conquer" it, in their language. How is it that we have yet to win the battle of hearts and minds, which is a collective Egyptian responsibility? Bringing an end to the emergency law necessitates a two-pronged effort: the battle for democracy and the battle against terrorism. Taking part in the latter requires something more from certain civil society organs than issuing a feeble statement of condemnation in the aftermath of a terrorist attack here while simultaneously glorifying similar acts elsewhere, cheering illegal militias and even supporting the creation of terrorist cells in Egypt beneath the banner of helping Gaza. The third consideration we must bear in mind is that part of the reason for the failure of the battle to win hearts and minds stems from the pervasive assault of the attitude that holds that the only way to check rampant sinfulness in Egyptian society is to impose strict restrictions upon literary and artistic outputs. The attempt to ban the publication of A Thousand and One Nights, one of the wonders of world heritage, represents complicity with a drive to restrain free thought and expression and is worse than any emergency law could be. It requires only a quick glance at the waves of intellectual and moral terrorism that have struck our country over recent decades to realise what our country and its media would be like if militant extremists succeeded in attaining their objectives. Fourthly, as the foregoing suggests, extending the emergency law is not the only way to fight terrorism. In fact, the international convention now is to deal with terrorism in a separate law so as to permit the state to exercise the necessary powers to confront this insidious danger while enabling "normal" life to continue as usual. The Egyptian government, too, has long campaigned for an anti-terrorism law and for mobilising all available intellectual and moral resources towards achieving victory over terrorism so as to bring an end to all forms of extraordinary powers and to pave the way for democracy and progress in general. The foregoing considerations shaped my position on the emergency law and its extension. I personally have always pleaded for the restoration of "normalcy" -- a political and intellectual goal. At the same time, I should stress that I was considerably impressed by the generally fruitful discussions of this issue in the National Democratic Party (NDP), in parliament and in the press. Advocates of extending the law rested their position on some very sound arguments. Firstly, it safeguards the inroads we have made against the threats of terrorism and drug trafficking and it is still needed to confront some very real security threats. Certain groups are vehemently opposed to certain national policies and bent on using violent means to undermine them. This applies to foreign policy in particular and especially the government's stance on the Middle East peace process. The arrest of a Hizbullah cell in Egypt most clearly illustrates the nature and extent of the security challenges the country faces at present. Interestingly, some supporters of the extension, in spite of their desire to restore normalcy to the country, liken their position to that of Obama with respect to the closure of Guantanamo, the implementation of which decision had been hampered by various complications and problems. They hold, secondly, that Egypt is not alone in applying an emergency law. Israel, for example, has operated under emergency law since its inception. Turkey had one in effect between 1971 and 2002, Algeria since 1992, Syria since 1963 and Pakistan between 1977 and 1985. At least 17 other countries have had to seek recourse to emergency law at some point in their contemporary history and these include such countries as France, Germany, Malaysia, Switzerland, Spain, Britain, Argentina, Australia and Canada. Thirdly, the extension of the emergency law this time is only partial; it can be applied only in the fight against terrorism and drugs. As such it could become an important step towards political reform, for now the law can no longer be used for the purposes of monitoring communications in any form; monitoring, censoring or confiscating media and publications or ordering the closure of publishing houses and broadcasters. Nor can it be invoked to regulate the hours of commercial establishments and activities, to seize private property, and to order the evacuation and isolation of certain areas. Fourthly, in addition to imposing numerous restrictions on the extraordinary powers sanctioned under a state of emergency, as stipulated in Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 6 of Article 3, the newly modified law marks a qualitative precedent. This is the first time a provision was added to the law explicitly limiting its use to counterterrorism and fighting drug trafficking. Opponents to the extension cited some cogent arguments in favour of their point of view. They maintained, for example, that renewing the law gives prevalence to security considerations over civil liberties, which is contrary to the practice in other countries where the relationship between the state and the people is founded upon a form of consensus over the protection of civic rights as the primary mechanism for safeguarding the security and interests of the state. They also held that the extension violates government pledges. In his 2005 electoral campaign, President Mubarak vowed that he would introduce new counterterrorism legislation to replace the emergency law and in 2008 the government promised that the extension of the law that year was the last. In addition, they fear that the recent extension will further encumber the political reform process. They argue, thirdly, that other countries facing perilous security challenges have not sought recourse to emergency law. India, following the horrific attacks in Mumbai in November 2008, is a salient example. They simultaneously point out that there has been a considerable reduction in terrorist activities and that security is now relatively stable in Egypt, which diminishes the importance of the emergency law, all the more so since the laws pertaining to combating drugs are sufficient to cope with that threat. Finally, yielding to the temptation of conspiracy theorising, they insist that the government's determination to extend the law was prompted by its desire to hold the forthcoming legislative and presidential elections while the law was still in effect, so as to facilitate tampering with the polls. The discussion, or quarrel if you will, had a certain ironical aspect. In arguing in favour of the extension, the government acted as though it were "reluctant" to take this step but compelled by circumstances that it failed to do enough to overcome. As suggested previously, in arguing against it, the majority of the opposition seemed oblivious to the persistence of circumstances that they, too, had failed to do enough to overcome. In the end, the majority prevailed in favour of a compromise that rested on two essential conditions. The first, as we have said, is to restrict the application of law to fighting the pursuit and funding of terrorism and activities related to the manufacture, import and export, and trade in drugs. The second is that the emergency law will only continue to the end of its two-year extension if a specific anti-terrorism law has not been passed before then. Before an antiterrorism bill is put to the vote it will be opened to public debate with civil society organisations and the National Council for Human Rights. The government has undertaken the twofold pledge. It will not use the extraordinary powers available to it under emergency law to undermine human rights and civil liberties. At the same time, in the event that it is compelled to apply such powers for their designated purposes, it will adhere to the relevant constitution and legal guarantees and to its international commitments, and the application will be subject to judicial supervision. The government rested its defence for renewing the emergency law on several grounds, the foremost being that it had not yet completed drafting the anti-terrorism law. The bill has been delayed, in part, by the difficulty of striking an appropriate balance between safeguarding security and safeguarding constitutionally stipulated civic rights and freedoms. It is a delicate matter that clearly requires closer study and further discussion. The delay also stems from the considerable disparity of opinion over how to define the term "terrorism". In order to resolve this dilemma, a parliamentary committee, headed by Minister of State for Parliamentary and Legal Affairs Moufid Shehab, has been tasked with producing an acceptable definition and, then, completing a final draft of an anti- terrorism bill. The foregoing places an onus on the shoulders of all reformists who are keen to ensure that Egypt remains squarely on the path to progress. In order to put an end to the state of emergency and pave the way for the type of "normal" life that exists under advanced democracies, they must apply themselves to certain tasks. The first is to make the war against terrorism and the ideas that support terrorism a cause that engages the whole of political society, not just the security agencies. The second is to ascertain that the improvements that have been introduced to the emergency law are applied through the release of detainees who have not been charged, and through efforts to ensure that extraordinary powers are not abused. Thirdly, they must work for the successful passage of an anti-terrorism law as soon as possible during the next parliamentary season, so as to bring the restoration of normalcy within closer reach. Fourthly, they should endorse all possible forms of material and moral support for the security agencies from the national budget, other government agencies and the public so that our security forces can perform their heavy duties without unnecessary strain or encumbrances. But I hasten to add, here, that the government, too, has an additional responsibility beyond the ones mentioned above. It should take advantage of the opportunity to prove the opposition wrong by waging a fair and clean fight in the forthcoming elections. Towards this end, it should take the appropriate measures to guarantee the credibility and impartiality of the campaigns. Meanwhile, another chapter in the story of the emergency law has come to an end. As tense and emotionally charged as it was, I believe that the overall result was positive in terms of the prospects for democracy and in terms of our security. Blessed are the reformers who seek to promote the nation's progress and to protect it at the same time.
