Omayma Abdel-Latif assesses the prospects of a promised end to 25 years of martial law That President Hosni Mubarak announced he would be seeking a fifth term in office surprised no one. What did come as a surprise in the speech in which he revealed his candidacy were suggestions that the 24-year-old emergency laws could soon be lifted. "We were forced to impose the emergency laws following tragic circumstances of which you are all aware," Mubarak said in his speech. But while he was critical of those who blame "everything on the emergency laws" -- they had been imposed, he said, as a necessary "safeguard of the security of the homeland and its citizens" -- he went on to say that the time was now right for the state of emergency to be abolished and new anti-terrorist legislation introduced in its stead. For the opposition, and many civil society groups, the justifications offered for extending the state of emergency first imposed following the assassination of President Anwar El-Sadat in October 1981 have long been flimsy. Almost quarter of a century of martial law, they say, has left the country in a state of paralysis. Political parties, professional syndicates and civil society institutions have all faced excessive restrictions on their activities while civil liberties have been systematically eroded. "The state of emergency is not just about fighting terrorism... it quickly became the foundation of the regime's rule," says Baheieddin Hassan, head of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies. "It seeped into the social, political and civil fabric of the country." Among the most debilitating effects of the last 24 years is the pervasive apathy that characterises the body politic. Few Egyptians believe they are in a position to effect change. In the words of one commentator, the heavy hand of emergency rule brought about the demise of politics in Egypt. National Democratic Party (NDP) pundits would disagree. The opposition, they claim, has exaggerated the impact of emergency rule. The provisions contained in the emergency laws, they argue, have only been invoked during times of danger with the result that margins of freedom have gradually expanded. Mubarak's suggestions that the state of emergency could soon end reflect an ongoing debate within the NDP. In July 2004, NDP Secretary-General Safwat El-Sherif was widely quoted in the national press as saying "the party has no objection to the abolition of emergency laws." The National Council for Human Rights has for some time been pondering the possible effects of abolishing the law. Some legal experts fear it will result in a "legislative vacuum" that could compromise domestic security while others appear keen to downplay such concerns. Article 148 of the constitution allows the president to declare a state of emergency for a fixed period of time. Any renewal beyond that period must be approved by the People's Assembly. Initially the renewal period was every year, then every two years. Since 1994, it was extended by an additional 12 months. The present state of emergency is due to end in May 2006. "No country in the world has lived under emergency rule longer than Egypt," notes Hamdeen Sabahi, head of the would-be Al-Karama Party. "A whole generation of Egyptians knows nothing but these restrictive laws." While abolishing the emergency laws has been a key demand of opposition groups for two decades now, Mubarak's seeming acquiescence was met with scepticism from across the political spectrum. Many consider the timing of the announcement, which came only days before the presidential campaign opens, as a tactical move. Others, including a number of legal experts, say the abolition will come too late. Many of the most repressive measures initially sanctioned by the emergency laws, including restrictions on freedom of assembly and association have, they argue, already found their way into civil law. "The majority of provisions contained in the emergency laws are now enshrined in the penal code to the extent that there is really no point in speaking of an end to emergency rule," says Atef El-Banna, professor of constitutional law at Cairo University . In his speech Mubarak stressed that terrorism was the only target of the emergency laws. Their implementation, he said, "had to a great extent limited terrorist acts and led to the abortion of several terror plots". The opposition would disagree. "The Sharm El-Sheikh bombings," says Hassan, "reveal just how disastrous the security policies that accompanied the emergency laws have been." "All terrorist operations since the Taba bombings have been conducted by individuals with no previous criminal record and who are not members of any known militant groups. The only thing they have in common," points out Hassan, "is that they belong to a generation born and raised under emergency rule." Abolishing emergency rule also raises questions over the fate of an estimated 20,000 detainees, some imprisoned for 15 years, without charges or trial. The anti-terror laws which Mubarak said could replace the state of emergency have dismayed many in opposition circles. "There is a draft proposal," says Hassan, "submitted by the Interior Ministry which suggests Article 3 of the emergency law be incorporated in the civil code." This, he explains, means the overwhelming prerogatives accorded to the president during exceptional circumstances would effectively be incorporated in the penal code. The article allows the presidency enormous leeway in restricting the right of the assembly and association, and in monitoring the media. "Judging by experience," comments one political analyst, "the worse the legislation, the wider it opens the door to yet more despotic procedures, often introduced under the guise of reform." According to El-Banna there is a danger of repeating the mistakes of 1980 when El-Sadat abolished emergency rule only to replace it with a package of repressive laws intended to "safeguard the domestic front". "A similar scenario," he argues, "appears to be unravelling as emergency rule is replaced with anti-terror laws."
