I was rather miffed that al-Gammal and Eissa spent so much time talking about the provision that sharia is a source of law in the Egyptian constitution. Although this was relevant to the topic of the debate and the whole issue of whether the MB want a theocratic state or not, to be honest I think it’s rather besides the point when you have such a calamitous set of constitutional amendments coming through that threaten to permanently reduce personal and political freedoms. For this reason I was rather impressed by the impassioned speech Aboul Fotouh gave, skewering Eissa and defending the MB who are after all the ones being arrested and having their private property being confiscated these days. Although that was perhaps the easy political speech to make (and he was the only real politician of the panel), I do get the feeling that the pointless debate over sharia law (and Coptic demands for a fully secular state, which I personally support) is eclipsing the serious injury done to the constitution. It was particularly disappointing to have al-Gammal, the expert of the group, not give AUC students a better explanation of some of the more damaging changes that would give security forces routine powers to wiretap, search homes, and more. Or how despite rising fraud in elections, fewer and fewer judges will supervise future elections.
It’s not the best study of these changes made thus far, but the Land Center has a long report on the constitutional amendments for those who are interested. (Download Constitutional Amendments.doc)
Time to go!
They didn’t focus on sharia law so much as whether or not the MB could be legalised as a party according to the terms of the proposed Article 5 amendment (if I caught that correctly), and that’s perfectly legitimate to discuss given that the title of the debate was “Constitutional Amendments and the Muslim Brotherhood.” What was annoying was the rehashing of the old “Sadat created the Islamists” argument that was completely irrelevant to the question at hand, and the wanking on about what a theocracy is, with the obligatory Bush and Bin Laden references.
I thought it interesting that Gammal and Abul Futouh pointed to the lack of real party pluralism and the state’s tight control on legalising “cardboard parties” as a violation of equality and the individual citizen’s right to political participation. Wish there had been more discussion of the precise ways in which the proposed anti-terrorism law would violate individual liberties as compared with emergency law. Eissa was the only one who touched on that a little bit (Robin seems to have caught more of that discussion than I did so perhaps he’ll chime in).