There are five main reasons why Egypt should not hesitate in choosing a presidential system, argues Mohamed Moustafa Orfy* Egypt has to determine in the new constitution that will be formulated in the coming weeks the identity of its governance system, in other words the regime that will prevail for an indefinite period that may extend for decades. The ruling systems in the international arena can be divided into three categories: the first is the presidential system, the closest example being the American system; the second is the parliamentary system, with examples being the United Kingdom, or Israel; and the third being the "mixed system", which consists of a combination of parliamentary and presidential elements, the clearest example of which is France. According to the presidential system, the president always has the upper hand in forming or sacking a government. This right does not mean any infringement on the legitimacy of the elected parliament and its right to monitor the government's performance, however, or its right to pass new laws and regulations. The presidential system also authorises the president, or more precisely, the presidency, to draw up the outlines of domestic and foreign policy, based on inputs provided by all the institutions in the country. In the parliamentary system, the government is formed by the largest parliamentary bloc, ie the majority party, which might in doing so form a coalition with other smaller or weaker parties to form the government. This government then assumes the major responsibilities in running the country internally and externally. In a parliamentary system, the powers of the elected president remain mostly supervisory. They can sometimes be significant enough to allow for the dismissal of the government, or narrow enough to be confined to the ceremonial functions carried out by the head of state. The mixed system involves a bit of the one and a bit of the other. In principle, it sets out the criteria by which the president and the ruling party share power. For instance, the president might assume responsibility for national security and foreign policy, while the head of the government, emerging out of parliamentary elections, may carry the burden of domestic affairs that include but are not limited to running the economy and providing the population with a decent standard of living. There are five main factors that suggest that a presidential system is the most suitable for Egypt, at least during the foreseeable future. This system should be advocated openly and transparently, even if the reasons for it may shock public opinion. First, Egypt suffers from rampant illiteracy. The most optimistic estimates suggest that this affects no less than one third of the population. The responsibility for this catastrophic situation could be ascribed in varying degrees to the three former presidents, but not on an equal footing. Coupled with this, there has been a noticeable decline in the cultural level, or awareness, of the educated layers of society. In a democracy, necessary for any civilised nation whatever its results may bring, the vote of a professor has the same value as the vote of a worker. However, to put it bluntly, a large proportion of the population, which has enormous voting power, may not know what is and what is not in its own interests. It may not be able to distinguish between those who hold a left-wing orientation and those who hold liberal views on how the country should be run. As a result, this part of the population could easily be deceived or manipulated by any party able to show its readiness to help it overcome its problems. This being so, it could be claimed that the consequences of the democratic process, no matter how free and fair, may not necessarily be conducive to the overall national interest. This painful reality means that the parliamentary system does not suit Egypt, at least not during the current stage. Second, the new Egypt will have to face the accumulation of chronic problems due to the failure of development policies over the past 60 years. These include, but are not restricted to, the economic system (taxation, wages and development model) and the social complications of this (how to achieve development and select its priorities), as well as the political system. A strong and legitimate president would be able to take the difficult and painful, as well as unpopular, decisions that are necessary to modernise the country. In short, a presidential system would be able to maintain the performance and decisiveness required for development to take place, without being sidetracked by parliamentary manoeuvres or calculations of popularity in the streets. If we review the experiences of countries that have become leading powers, such as Malaysia and Turkey, in a relatively short period, the importance of such a leader figure can be seen, for example in the example of Mahatir Mohamed in Malaysia. Third, Egypt will be able to pass through a period of transition from one-man rule to the desired democratic system. The former president controlled everything that happened in the country, and the cracks in his authority began to show during the last 10 years of his reign. The difficulty of a sudden, perhaps immature, transition to either a parliamentary or a mixed system lies in the fact that Egyptian society lacks the necessary experience or expertise to do so. Many questions should be posed, including how a coalition government should be formed under such a system, or whether a coalition government is even a good idea in the first place. Would such a government genuinely be able to carry out its tasks, or would it remain captive to various parliamentarian loyalties or have to compete for popularity with other parties? Someone might claim that the current majority of Muslim Brotherhood and Salafi MPs in parliament indicates that the whole society adheres to the Islamists' vision of things, but their overwhelming success in the last elections may not necessarily be repeated, and today's majority may be tomorrow's defeated minority. This is particularly the case since their victory may not have been a sign of their genuine strength, but may instead have been a sign of the weakness of the other parties and the power vacuum formed by the dissolution of the former ruling National Democratic Party. The difficulties in today's Egypt leave little room for parliamentary trial and error, at least over the next decade or so. Four, Egypt's foreign policy has its own sensitivities, as well as its own linkages to regional and global contexts. It has passed through various ups and downs, and it has receded in influence over recent years. The hope now is that the new Egypt's more active foreign policy can bring Egypt back to its leading place regionally and internationally, and a presidential system would allow the head of state to tackle Egyptian interests abroad and rectify various wrongs. These could range from solving unresolved and long-standing disputes regarding the River Nile to laying the foundations for a newly balanced relationship with the sole superpower, as well as with ascending powers around the globe. Any new president would also need to foster a new vision towards restoring Egypt's presence in neighbouring areas, such as the Arab world, Africa and the Mediterranean. A strong president in a presidential system would accelerate the development of this new foreign policy and the speed of its implementation, and it would distance state actors from partisan politics. Fifth, the Egyptian people is still somewhere on the tricky road of deciding on the proper role of religion in society. The liberal, or non-Islamist, elements fear that the new Egypt may replace the repression of the previous regime with an even worse one that mixes religion with politics and creates a new form of theocratic tyranny. Egypt's intelligentsia fears the consequences of involving religion in daily life. On the other hand, the supporters of the Islamist trend argue that the recent election results indicate that the community as a whole is eager to see religion play a role in political life. There is no harm in this, they say, since Islam was originally designed to establish a state and a society on religious lines, not just to decide on private matters such as inheritance and ritual purity. Debate in this direction could continue, but this is not the subject of this article. Briefly, the introduction of a presidential system should reassure everyone, whether at home or abroad, that the majority in parliament will not be able to impose its opinions on others. It should be noted that if the Muslim Brotherhood carries out its stated intention of not supporting a candidate belonging to an Islamist party in the presidential elections, this will demonstrate a high level of political maturity on its part that should be recognised and praised. To cut a long story short, I believe that a presidential system is the best suited for Egypt at the present stage, unlike a parliamentary system, which may not satisfy the needs of the community. Likewise, a mixed system could carry within it the seeds of discord between the president and the majority party if there is no clear division of authority, and this sort of discord cannot be tolerated over the years ahead. The academic literature suggests that the transition to democratic rule may take between five to ten years, if the societal and external conditions are in its favour, such as the existence of external support and the maintenance of a good level of education and stability. We must not imagine that we shall become like Switzerland overnight. As a result, the adoption of a presidential system of government could facilitate the way forward on the path of reform and democracy, and it could help us to avoid formidable obstacles. It should be noted that the adoption of a presidential system does not mean reproducing the previous regime. The new president should have effective tools, but this does not mean that he will have absolute power to do whatever he likes, since he will remain under the supervision of the elected parliament and public opinion, as well as of pressure groups in society as a whole. These things will allow the president within a presidential system to set sail in the right direction, while facilitating an active political life in the country as a whole and an active civil society. * The writer is an academic.
