The juxtaposed forces in the heated "constitution first" debate are reaching a deal, Dina Ezzat reports Hot debate over how to handle the transition between the autocratic rule of Hosni Mubarak and the introduction of a new democratic system in Egypt might cool a little following a deal struck Tuesday among a number of political parties that produced a set of parameters by which the committee to draft a new constitution following parliamentary elections should abide. "We signed a deal that brought together liberal parties and the Muslim Brotherhood. We hope everybody will honour what they had agreed to when the time comes to draft the constitution," said Hussein Abdel-Razeq, a leading member of the leftist Tagammu Party. Speaking to Al-Ahram Weekly following the conclusion of Tuesday's meeting, Abdel-Razeq was not willing to fully put aside his concerns about possible backtracking on the Tuesday bargain by some signatories when the time comes to draft the constitution. He is, however, willing to restrain his scepticism. Along with the Muslim Brotherhood -- represented in the Freedom and Justice Party -- some 17 political parties, mostly non-Islamist, agreed to a document carrying the title Democratic Consensus for Egypt, though the Wasat Party, an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, declined to sign the document, along with Salafist groups that are currently organising a plan of action for the parliamentary elections. The document, tellingly signed at the headquarters of the Muslim Brotherhood's political party, refers to a set of "determining principles to the drafting of the constitution", including what it qualifies as the "leading values of [Egyptian] society, top amongst which are the freedom of faith and worship and that the [concept of] citizenship is the basis for [administrating relations within] society". The document also refers to political freedoms, the separation of powers and the pursuit of development and social justice. No reference is made in the document to the taboo phrase for Islamist forces: a "civil state". The document comes less than 24 hours after Al-Azhar made a notable contribution to the political debate by offering a document of its own in support of the establishment of the "national, constitutional, democratic and modern state" -- a combination of adjectives that many in liberal quarters sum up as a "civil state", something to which figures of political Islam are opposed in view of their association of "civil state" with "secular state", whereas in their view all state laws should be based on Islamic Sharia. Unlike the Democratic Consensus for Egypt document, that of Al-Azhar goes into details about "free and direct elections as the modern way to apply the Islamic precepts of Shura," and "the acknowledgment of basic rights�ê� with no discrimination�ê� and equal rights and duties for all citizens on an equal footing." Some of the participants in the Tuesday meeting, who spoke to the Weekly on condition of anonymity, argued that Al-Azhar's document is much more progressive than the one issued by the coalition of political parties, and suggested that it was the political Islamist parties that blocked the adoption of similar language to that promoted by Al-Azhar. In the words of one participant, "This goes to show that the Muslim Brotherhood will again try to dilute the commitment they made in the document when the time comes to write the constitution." He argued that what the Muslim Brotherhood wanted out of this document was to block debate over whether to have a constitution first, before elections. For Sobhi Saleh, a leading figure of the Muslim Brotherhood and a constitutional expert, there is "no way" that the constitution will be drafted ahead of parliamentary elections. "Not even the Higher Council of the Armed Forces [HCAF] can issue an order to have the constitution written before the parliamentary elections," he said. For Saleh, if the ruling HCAF was to issue such an order it would be "illegitimate, unconstitutional and void". Saleh was selected by the HCAF to join the committee headed by Islamist Tarek El-Beshri that drafted the amendments to the constitution that were accepted by a massive majority on 19 March, introducing a plan of action by which parliamentary elections should precede the drafting of a constitution by a committee to be formed from the new parliament. For Saleh, it is the committee to draft the constitution that will decide the articles of the constitution. "And if some argue that the majority cannot draft the constitution because the majority changes, I say when the majority changes then it could decide to change whatever it wants to change." For political analyst Amr Rabie Hashem, it is clear where the forces of political Islam wish to take the new constitution. Hashem anticipates confrontation between Islamists and liberal forces that decline to succumb to the reading of Islam the former insist upon. "There is an obvious determination to refuse the Islamist monopolisation," he said. For Hashem, as for other political and legal analysts, the way out could include a referendum on the "constitution first" issue. If a majority wishes to draft a new constitution before elections, then this should be the case, he argued. But for Saleh, there is no grounding for a new referendum, which he says would be opposed by the Muslim Brotherhood. According to sources close to the HCAF, the intention is to stick to the rules included in the constitutional amendments that were voted in by 14 million Egyptians against four million opposed in a free and fair referendum. Hassan Abu Taleb, political analyst, is convinced that the set of principles agreed upon in Tuesday's deal as guidelines to the drafting of the new constitution is a sufficient guarantee to ensure that the new constitution will not be tainted with the views of political Islamist groups. Abu Taleb, who declines to harbour alarmist fears of the radical Islamisation of the constitution, argues that "at the end of the day, the Islamists are unlikely to have more than 30 per cent -- or a maximum of 35 per cent -- of the next parliament, and as such there is no way that they could force their views over the next constitution." For Abu Taleb, and for other political analysts, it is important to respect the results of the referendum of 19 March, and also to avoid interjecting the HCAF into the political debate. In a meeting with the American Chamber of Commerce over the weekend, Major General Mohamed El-Assar, a HCAF member, said that the council is keeping an equal distance of all political forces and that it is willing to support the consensual views of political parties. El-Assar said that the council could not simply reverse the outcome of the March referendum. El-Assar appeared favourable to any agreement among political forces establishing guidelines that are compatible with general demands, underlining that the values of all citizens should be acknowledged when the time comes for drafting the new constitution. (see Editorial p.18)
