IT is scandalous that the legislative authority has failed in writing the first law for the elections, because it included articles violating the recently endorsed constitution. The decision this week of the Supreme Constitutional Court (SCC) to reject the draft parliamentary elections law reveals the kind of weakness and non-commitment to the rule of law on the part of the legislative authority that is now assumed by the Shura Council (Upper Parliamentary House). Fortunately, the new constitution, which was endorsed on December 25, 2012 after long argument over its articles, included an article forcing the legislative authority to refer any election law to the SCC for approval, so as to prevent the repeated dissolution of the coming parliaments on grounds of being non-constitutional. Curiously, amending this draft elections law was one of the many demands raised by the opposition powers, including the National Salvation Front, as a condition for taking part in the coming elections. However, the Shura Council with its Islamists majority turned a deaf ear to such calls and sent the controversial law to the SCC, with the many articles that do not afford a fair chance for different powers to compete in the coming elections. Fortunately, the SCC rejected the law at the right time and recommended amending the five articles that violate the constitution. The opposition rejected this law, mainly on account of the articles that repeated the previous defect of the old legislation, such as allowing to candidates for the parliamentary elections to run as independents, and then to rejoin their parties after winning seats. This was the deviant way the dissolved National Democratic Party used to follow to guarantee its majority in parliament. Now, the Shura Council members have no alternative but to submit to the court's recommendation and appropriately rewrite these articles. Any move against the law would deepen the rift between the Muslim Brotherhood ruling regime and the judiciary, which might not accept supervising the process and so subject the whole political process to fresh turmoil. Despite the numerous transgressions detected in previous elections and referenda, the election process should be held under full judicial supervision so as to guarantee the requisite transparency and fairness. In addition, the Presidency needs to reassure the opposition parties that the election process will be sound, transparent and fair, so as to convince them to take part and give up calls boycotting the elections it and motivate the electorate to go to the ballot boxes.
