The public is all too familiar with broken promises. Will it be different this time, wonders Mohamed Nour Farahat* On 28 July President Hosni Mubarak promised to press ahead with a programme of political reform if re-elected. It was a landmark statement, linking the future legitimacy of government to its ability to deliver political and social reforms. It indicates that a new social contract is in the making under which the government will finally become accountable to the people. The president promised to re-organise the relationship between the legislative and executive branches of government so as to provide checks and balances and bolster oversight; to redistribute power within the executive, granting greater powers to the cabinet; to place constraints on presidential prerogatives in matters concerning national security; to improve the electoral system so as to ensure opposition parties and women are more fairly represented; to promote decentralisation by empowering governorates and municipalities and to replace the emergency laws with anti-terror legislation. It would be churlish to quibble with any of these promises, many of which are long overdue. Yet what the president actually said falls short of a political programme, being far too general to act as a reliable guide to the trajectory of reform. Details are needed, not generalities, for it is only when the specifics are spelt out that the possibility of backtracking is minimised. In this respect we face a tough legacy. We face the kind of thing that happened following the president's call to amend Article 76 of the constitution. The amendment was hi-jacked by crafty cronies who proceeded to drain it of all meaning as the public watched in horrified silence. The president has promised a balance between the executive and legislative branches of government. No one could object to this given the manner in which law-making has been turned from an act of collective will into an exercise in executive gimmickry. It is a long time indeed since parliament has offered any real oversight, let alone guidance. The call to amend Article 76, to go back to that sorry example, was widely applauded because, it was supposed, it would legalise multi- candidate elections. What actually happened, though, was that the amended article excluded the possibility of any independent candidates running except those approved by the National Democratic Party (NDP). In the forthcoming elections party leaders have been allowed to enter the contest but come 2011, given the restrictions contained within the amendment, the NDP candidate could easily find himself standing unopposed. An amendment that was supposed to usher in an era of pluralism ended up reinforcing the one-candidate system the public detests. So how, exactly, does the president plan to go about restoring the balance between executive and legislative powers? What new powers will be granted to the cabinet? How exactly will the anti-terror law enhance security without infringing on citizens' rights? Given the experiences of the past such questions are urgent. The 1952 Revolution offered the nation six promises. Number six was "the establishment of proper democratic life". It's been 53 years and we are still waiting. The National Work Charter of the early 1960s promised social justice. We're still waiting for that, too. Other presidential pledges, including the 30 March 1969 Statement and the October Paper of 1971, have been gathering dust for years. We don't need more promises, we need deeds. Sadly, there is no scarcity of pro-government legislators intent on undermining the spirit of any reform initiatives. This is hardly surprising when you take into account how long it has been since we have had a parliament that even bothered to pay lip service to the interests of the people. But enough griping. Let's consider the tasks at hand: Taking power from the president and giving it to the cabinet is a complex matter. What we need is to link power with accountability. As things stand the president is unaccountable. According to the 1971 constitution -- indeed, to all constitutions written after 1952 -- the president exercises extensive authority over the executive branch while remaining immune to oversight. If we're serious about democracy perhaps we should introduce a parliamentary model of government, placing power in the hands of a cabinet that is accountable to the parliament. The balance between the executive and legislative branches is equally tricky. Under the current system the president embodies executive power and, because he is not answerable to the parliament, the executive itself becomes unaccountable. Because the president is also leader of the ruling party, parliament is hostage to the executive. To introduce checks and balances to political life the president's power over the cabinet will need to be curbed. So long as the president heads the ruling party and exercises authority over the cabinet there can be nothing except a series of rubberstamp parliaments. Parties need to become more active and assertive which means a whole arsenal of restrictive laws and procedures must be scrapped. The introduction of party lists in elections could be helpful for starters. And our legislators should start thinking of specific ways in which to attract women and other marginalised groups to participate in political life. The replacement of emergency laws by anti- terror legislation must not, under any circumstances, become a pretext to bully political opponents or abuse individual rights. The government must resist the temptation to further restrict freedoms in the name of security. Any measures taken to fight terror should be approved by the judiciary. All defendants, even those accused of terror crimes, should be subject to fair trial and due process. Extraordinary measures may be taken to prevent terror but not at the expense of basic rights, particularly the right for fair trial. Finally, Article 77 of the constitution must be amended to limit presidential terms to two, as was the case before the amendment of the 1971 constitution. * The writer is professor of law, Zagazig University.
