CAIRO - When around 18 million Egyptians headed to the ballot boxes to vote on the proposed constitutional amendments on March 19, they were not choosing between a secular or religious image of the new post-Mubarak Egypt. Rather, they were thrilled with a joyful sense of victory over the totalitarian regime, which had ruled them for three decades and caused their backwardness in all fields, and they intended to effect a change that would guarantee just and democratic rule in the period ahead. Therefore, when the people headed to the ballot boxes to approve the constitutional amendments they did not necessarily understand the consequences of saying ‘Yes' to these amendments that resulted in the announcement of a new constitutional declaration with further articles to organise the transitional process. They did not also fully visualise the current division of the political powers between Islamist and secular groups, each seeking to impose their vision on the post-January revolution Egypt. Therefore, it is offensive to citizens to have some parties speak on their behalf today and claim that they are preserving the public will as affirmed in the March 19 referendum. Additionally, these self-professed representatives insist on rejecting any of the suggested documents of principles being drawn up by some wise parties, including the pre-eminent Sunni Islam institution, Al-Azhar. These documents are designed to curb division of the political parties on one hand and domination of certain factions of the process of writing the constitution according to their vision and agenda, if they succeed in winning a majority of the seats in the coming parliament. Last Wednesday, Al-Azhar invited different political parties and movements to a meeting in its headquarters to debate and endorse its document distributed last June in co-operation with some noted thinkers of this country. Attending the meeting were not only representatives of different political parties but also some presidential hopefuls. They all approved the document that called for having a democratic constitutional state and respecting equal rights of all citizens, regardless of their race, religion and gender. However, the Salafists [ultra-fundamentalist Islamists] have refused to endorse the document, claiming that they lacked the requisite good political experience to judge it! Meanwhile, the Wasat Party, which is of a religious background, has announced clear opposition to the document as being issued by the religious institution of Al-Azhar, which, in its opinion, shouldn't interfere in politics. While the Salafists have admitted their lack of political experience, how then do they insist on dominating society with their thinking to impose they image they prefer of the State of Egypt. The other noticeable paradox is the stand of the Wasat Party in criticising Al-Azhar for its initiative to end the ongoing conflict with the pretext of it being a religious and not political institution. However, this same party has not criticised the Muslim Brotherhood when it formed a political party with the aim of participating in the coming parliamentary elections. Neither has it criticised the high profile shown by the Salafists at the July 29 gathering in Tahrir Square, when they raised slogans seeking the creation of an Islamic State. Salafists, too, have founded the political party Al-Nur and have a presidential candidate in the coming elections. In other word, these Islamists, who have decided to practise politics, have no right to criticise the Al-Azhar institution. The latter intended to intervene so as to settle the ongoing conflict and establish the base for protecting the Egyptian cultural identity, which has always adopted the moderate nature of Islam. Besides, Al-Azhar is not a mere religious institution but a cultural one that played a great patriotic role in supporting the national movements against colonial powers and occupation forces. So distancing it today from public affairs is a wicked attempt to lower its moderate voice in society for the welfare of the outcries of the extremist Islamists. The only point that needs elaboration in the Al-Azhar document is its refraining from referring in implicit words to the ‘civil state' raising a wide argument at the society. Actually the meaning of the Arabic term, that is madaneya, could be interpreted as non-military, non-religious or even secular. Even the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces keeps reiterating its commitment of transferring authority to a civil body without elaborating whether this means non-military, secular or non-religious authority. Herein emerges the importance of setting a clear definition for the term ‘civil state' in Egypt, so that citizens would understand the actual goals of the parties calling for it. As much as many citizens fear the domination of Islamist groups on the political life in Egypt, they also show concern at the liberal parties. Some of these groups insist on forcing a Western secular image of the state on Egypt including a full separation between religion and not only politics but also the social and cultural life of the people. The Egyptians are still a conservative religious people; although they are looking forward to enjoying a democratic free life that enables them to participate in the decision-making process and conduct progress, they still do not want to be Westernised in their life style and seek to protect their own identity. Generally speaking, the general approval expressed for the Al-Azhar document should be respected and not violated when the time comes to draw up the country's new constitution of the country, even though the document is non-binding and has neither been endorsed by SCAF nor voted on in a public referendum.
Dear readers are invited to contribute their comments, views and questions via 111-115 Ramsis St., Cairo or e-mail: ([email protected])
