Constitutional reform
By
Salama A Salama
Constitutional reform can be seen as a way of bringing our country in to line with the ambitions and aspirations of a new generation and of helping our people see the future with new eyes and, as a consequence break free from mental habits that have tied us down for the past 50 years; or it could be seen as an attempt to undermine stability, sabotage national unity, and destroy the social fabric. Is defending the status quo, resisting change and subverting democratic and political reforms the best way to avoid instability? Or is it a recipe for frustration and for continued backwardness and stagnation?
These are questions than no individual can answer, not even the secretary-general of the National Democratic Party (NDP). We know that many parties have been calling for constitutional reform in Egypt though we have not once heard that the NDP has discussed this topic at any of its myriad levels, or at its general congress. The party has reached no final, irrevocable decision.
We also know that the existing constitution was written in 1971, at a time when domestic, regional and international circumstances were very different from those that prevail today. Since that time Egypt has undergone a great many changes. There is no longer a public sector leading the development process, nor does the country maintain a centralised economy. The Socialist Union no longer exists as the country's one and only party. We have political pluralism with many parties in operation, albeit in a ramshackle way. Yet the NDP continues to monopolise authority through all available means. It continues to stubbornly oppose political reform and defends the status quo. It regurgitates old ideas and fails to come up with any new ideas, let alone new faces. All of which has combined to impart to our political life an air of stagnation and uncertainty, discouraging the majority of young people, and intellectuals, from taking part in elections or getting involvement in political life in other ways.
But constitutional reform is neither a political red-line that cannot be crossed nor a sacred cow that must be prevented from slaughter at all costs. To regard it as such is a grotesque misunderstanding of the meaning of the constitution, a horrific misconception that is, unfortunately, common in Third World countries. The constitution represents the means by which power is regulated, the mechanism by which checks and balances are introduced and abuse is curtailed. The constitution is not something for any power or any party to monopolise.
All countries revise their institutions from time to time. They do so when the need arises and when a majority is in clear support of such a move. The articles of the constitution are not a sacred text. This is particularly true when the constitution grew out of a specific period that had its own problems and requisites, its own circumstances and needs. To close the door to new ideas in matters of constitutional reform is to demand stagnation, despair, and inaction. No single party, no single individual has the right to make such a decision. We need a modern constitution. Without it we will not be able to move ahead, to introduce changes and stimulate the progress the people of this country deserve.
