"Some of the people"

Egypt needs comprehensive political system reform, not piecemeal words in a constitution that mean nothing in real life, writes Amin Howeidi

---

How many political parties are there in Egypt? What are they called? Who are their leaders and what are their platforms? Simple enough questions, one would think, but I doubt if anyone can come up with the correct answers.

We have parties founded with the approval of the authorities, and with enough official financial support for them to afford a headquarters and sometimes even more than one headquarters. Most of our parties have at least one newspaper through which they lash out at others with an invective that is unlikely to win new people into their ranks, which are steadily dwindling as members drop like flies due to extreme boredom from endless periods of inactivity. We have parties whose aims and programmes remain a mystery, whose activity on the ground among the people is non-existent and whose rotation of leadership is generally conducted through squabbles that find their way to the courts and that end with the party in splinters. If any of these parties have their heart set on reaching power through the polls, they don't stand a chance in their current state -- not that the current regime has lost any sleep over this, whatever it says to the contrary.

Even as these realities stare the architects of constitutional amendments in the face, they prattle on about paving the way for political parties to compete more effectively in presidential and legislative elections, and about rotation of authority and the like. But if you have nothing you can give nothing. It's one thing to change words on paper, its something else entirely to make these words stick in the context of existing realities. And who, after all, is responsible for these realities, for the lack of alternatives, and for the absence of any real competition? As important as this question is, we'll let it ride and simply say that the only outcome of the current constitutional amendment drive will be for the situation to remain exactly as it is. There'll be no democracy and no rotation of power, because all we are doing is tinkering with words at a time when our entire political environment needs to be reformed so that it can assume the grave responsibilities incumbent upon it. Calling smog a haze won't dispel the noxious clouds.

The Shura Council speaker and National Democratic Party (NDP) secretary-general told Al-Wafd of 21 January 2007: "The NDP dominates power and the state. It is time this domination comes to an end, because we have to forget the one-party system and strengthen the culture of plurality, in which the power of the system of government rests on the existence of political parties and on the rotation of authority secured, not by gift or by force, but by the ballot box." Never a truer word. But why hasn't this remedy been applied across the decades of the party's monopoly on power? How are we going to make happen what we haven't been able to make happen so far?

The secretary-general's comment was inspired by that not infrequently cited notion that, "amending constitutional Article 77 pertaining to presidential terms of office is no longer a matter of controversy now that Article 76 has been amended to permit the people to choose freely from among rival presidential candidates. Free competition means that if an elected president fails to achieve progress the people will certainly not re-elect him, and this makes political parties the backbone of the system."

What planet is this coming from? Is it not more in the nature of spouting a truth to accomplish nefarious ends? After all, as the NDP secretary-general, himself, admitted, we still live under the sway of a party lording it over a raft of insignificant ones, which effectively boils down to a one party-system. Plus, again, we are desperately short of a culture of plurality, and, again, who is responsible for that?

It is time we take an honest look at our situation and think and act accordingly: First, any amendments to the constitution must reflect our current realities: ineffective political parties; the inability of these parties to compete, in presidential elections in particular; a silent majority baffled by the discrepancy between what is said and what exists; a majority of the electorate in such a state of wretchedness that their vote has become a commodity open to the highest bidder among rich graspers for power.

Second, if political reform is to serve the people -- and that is its intent, is it not? -- it must be complemented by appropriate economic reforms. Political freedom is grounded in social freedom.

Third, there can be no democracy without limitations to the duration and number of presidential terms and without clear rules for the transfer of power. I was struck, recently, by Mauritania's constitution. It prohibits a president from serving more than two terms, and it prohibits a person 75 years or older from even running for president and, for that matter, from occupying any other party post. Under that constitution, an elected president does not have the right to dissolve parliament until at least a year has passed since the elections that brought him to power. Another article calls for the creation of an autonomous national authority to guarantee the integrity of the electoral process.

Fourth, the role of the state in the promotion of production and the just distribution of wealth must be more clearly defined, and measures must be instituted to prevent the concentration of wealth and power at all levels of government.

Fifth, judges must be kept as remote as possible from the political fray so that they can remain immune to the both the sword and the gold of the mighty.

Sixth, there must be safeguards against the hold of a single party over government and power, and against undue connections between people in power and people in business.

Seventh, the greatest priority must be given to reforming the environment of political competition. This is far more important than rewording a few constitutional articles. It is a formidable task, but if we do not pursue it we will continue to have no real competition, no true freedom of choice, and a dictatorship with democratic window- dressing.

We need a constitution that promotes and safeguards political and social freedom and that commands the respect of all. We also need political elites whose behaviour stands above reproach and can serve as a model for others. Now is the time for the powers that be to work with the people instead of against them. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but if you try to fool all, and all of the time, many will grumble and some will move underground and start working from there. Now is the time for all to work together for a constitution tailored to us, one that is neither too tight that it will rip or so loose that its only function is to conceal those imperfections that everyone agrees must go.