The changes may have begun in 2011, yet for the revolution to succeed a great deal must be accomplished in 2012, writes Khaled Dawoud Egyptians start the new year with polarised views on the direction the country needs to take. Getting rid of former president Hosni Mubarak a year ago increasingly looks like the easy part of the ongoing revolution, while warnings that his absence would lead to either chaos or an Islamist takeover continue to weigh heavy on many commentators and members of the public. The gap in expectations between the angry young men and women who sparked the 25 January Revolution and the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) led by Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi is likely to grow in 2012. The millions who filled the squares of Egypt's cities in January and February were demanding a change of regime and a radical overhaul of the way they had been for six decades. The army generals, who had enjoyed uncontested power since the army's revolt against the monarchy in 1952, had a different view and since Mubarak's ouster have sought to limit change to the removal of the head of state and any expectation that he would be replaced by his younger son Gamal. In 2012 Egyptians are expected to draft a new constitution, a process which several liberal and leftist groups have argued should have started immediately after Mubarak's removal. The SCAF chose a different path, creating one of the first deep rifts among the groups opposed to Mubarak's rule. By picking Tarek Al-Bishri, a respected former judge known for his sympathy to the Muslim Brotherhood, to head the committee mandated to draft the set of constitutional amendments that would govern the transitional period, the generals virtually guaranteed an outcome favourable to the Islamists. The only member of a political party to be chosen as a member of El-Bishri's committee was Sobhi Saleh, a leading Muslim Brother. One of the key amendments granted the next parliament the right to select the 100 member panel that would draft the post-Mubarak constitution, without specifying any criteria for their selection. Aware, like all political players, that the Muslim Brotherhood would win a majority in any popular contest it looked to many as if SCAF was handing the Islamic group power on a plate. Throughout 2011 the Brotherhood's leadership, in alliance with Salafist groups who scored surprisingly high levels of support in the ongoing parliamentary elections, strongly opposed attempts by liberal and leftist groups to agree in advance basic principles that should be included in any future constitution. Secular groups were clearly concerned that if the drafting of the constitution was left to parliament alone, the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist parties would seek to restrict freedom of expression and equal rights for women and Egypt's Coptic minority. The Brotherhood has given verbal commitments that it would respect their rights but has been vociferous in its opposition to those commitments being included in any supra- constitutional document. Their argument has consistently been that this would be counter to El-Bishri's amendments, approved by 77 per cent of voters who took part in the 19 March referendum. Controversy over the issue resulted in the removal of two deputy prime ministers, Yehia El-Gamal and Ali El-Silmi, criticised by the Brotherhood for seeking to draft a set of basic constitutional principles ahead of parliamentary elections. SCAF itself appeared increasingly concerned about the ramifications of the amendments it had contrived to be presented to the public and began to seek to appease leftist and liberal parties. The shift came at a heavy price. In November former deputy prime minister El-Silmi attempted to introduce what he called a set of "guiding principles" for the new constitution that insisted on the civil nature of the state but also prevented parliament from overseeing the army's budget and sought to establish the military as the "protector of constitutional legitimacy". Islamist opposition to the proposals led to the eventual dismissal of the cabinet, but not before security forces had turned on liberal protesters in Mohamed Mahmoud Street, off Tahrir Square, who were demanding an immediate transfer of power to a civil authority, something Islamist groups oppose. Nearly 50 Egyptians were killed before for the first time SCAF announced a firm date -- 30 June -- for presidential elections. Subsequently SCAF appointed the so-called Advisory Council to offer suggestions on controversial issues. Within days it was mired in division between members over whether its mandate included the drafting of basic constitutional principles and establishing criteria for the selection of the 100 members of the constitutional committee. Mansour Hassan, head of the Advisory Council and a former minister under late president Anwar El-Sadat, finally announced on Monday that it was up to parliament, scheduled to hold its first meeting on 23 January 2012, to decide how the drafting committee would be formed. Following clashes that began on 16 December, when the army began to forcibly disperse a month old sit-in in front of the Cabinet Office in Qasr Al-Aini Street, and in which 17 people were killed, there were increasing calls for presidential elections to be brought forward. According to the timetable set by SCAF the two houses of parliament, the People's Assembly and the Shura Council, are scheduled to meet in late March and form the constitution's 100-member drafting committee within two weeks. The committee will then have two months to finish its job. The new constitution would then be put to a referendum and, if approved, presidential elections held. Newly elected MPs such as Amr Hamzawy and Mustafa El-Naggar object to SCAF's timeframe and have been campaigning for the month long presidential election campaign to open on 1 April, before the drafting of a new constitution. Both argue that SCAF has lost any residual legitimacy following its mishandling of protests and has shown itself incapable of leading the transitional period with any degree of competence. The Brotherhood opposes any deviation from SCAF's timetable, insisting that a new president cannot take office before the constitution clearly sets his mandate. The constitution will determine whether Egypt has a presidential system, or a mix between a presidential and parliamentary system. Since 1952, when the army overthrew the monarchy and declared a republic, power has been concentrated in the office of the president. After 30 years under Mubarak, Egyptians seem to agree that the powers of the presidency must be curtailed. But to what extent is likely to be one of the most controversial issues of the new year. The future role of the army is also likely to be a major sticking point. If SCAF insists on seeking to avert civilian oversight of its budget and activities the generals are likely to find themselves in a showdown with a broad array of political forces, including the Muslim Brotherhood. While the Brotherhood and several other parties have signalled their willingness to grant the army establishment some sort of a special status in view of its history and the role it played in building modern Egypt the limits and extent of the supervision exercised over the army by the presidency and parliament remains one of thorniest outstanding issues. What's likely to make the debate even more difficult is the increasingly sour relations between the army and the political forces that kick-started the 25 January Revolution. December's clashes have deepened mistrust between the two sides, as has the campaign in the state-run media vilifying Tahrir protesters as "foreign agents" and anarchists out to undermine the Egyptian state. The new year will also be greeted by a public impatient for verdicts in Mubarak's trial, that of his two sons and senior security figures, including the former interior minister Habib El-Adli. Given that the trial opened on 3 August and has proceeded at a snail's pace, many wonder if a judgment will be delivered in 2012. And how will the fact that the chief of the judging panel is due to retire in June 2012 affect the court proceedings? If the trial is not complete by that date, does it have to begin all over again? And given that SCAF, perfectly happy to refer thousands of civilian protesters to military courts where there is no right of appeal, has adamantly refused that the former commander in chief be tried in anything but a civilian court, if a judgment is handed down next year it will inevitably be subject to lengthy multiple appeals.
