What kind of constitution are Egyptians voting for?

The path to voting on a referendum approving Egypt’s Islamist-constructed constitution was greased by Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi’ recent attempts to quell opposition to it—declaring emergency powers that also blocked judicial action—and appears to show that he and his Muslim Brotherhood and assorted Islamist allies intend to create their own vision of Egypt, regardless of the views of secularists and non-Islamic religious minorities.  But does the new constitution impose reactionary Sharia law, and does it carry the seeds to a return to autocratic rule?

There is a English-language translation of the draft constitution online, and on the surface the document doesn’t seem remarkably out of the ordinary—other than the fact it is quite wordy, repetitive and only specific in its intent in regard to religion. There is no “bill of rights,” but there is a jumble of “rights” that seem to pop-up at random, while there are other “articles” that seem to contradict what had been stated as a “right.”

For example, Article 45 states that “Freedom of thought and opinion shall be guaranteed…Every individual has the right to express an opinion and to disseminate it verbally, in writing or illustration, or by any other means of publication and expression.” Article 46 states that Article 45 “Freedom of thought and opinion shall be guaranteed.” Yet Article 31 states that “Dignity is the right of every human being, safeguarded by the State...Insulting or showing contempt toward any human being shall be prohibited.” This may be reference to the treatment of religious minorities in Egypt, especially since the “revolution” began and Islamists frequently targeted Christians and their churches; but it could also mean protection for political and religious leaders from criticism—and arbitrary arrest. 

Articles 10 and 11 state that “The State is keen to preserve the genuine character of the Egyptian family, its cohesion and stability, and to protect its moral values, all as regulated by law…The State shall safeguard ethics, public morality and public order, and foster a high level of education and of religious and patriotic values, scientific thinking, Arab culture, and the historical and cultural heritage of the people; all as shall be regulated by law.” Article 12
asserts “The State shall safeguard the cultural and linguistic constituents of society, and foster the Arabization of education, science and knowledge.” This suggests that the “state” will dictate the personal lives of individuals, that personal “freedoms” will be subject to Islamic “morality” police—and that “freedom of thought” will not include anything considered infidel-inspired.

The Supreme Guide of the Brotherhood—a group that Morsi belonged to but “resigned” from in order to appear “non-partisan” when running for the presidency—denounced opposition to the constitution;  divisiveness  “only serve the nation’s enemies.” What does this mean? Are Islamists tacitly admitting here that opposition to their vision of Egypt is not acceptable, and subject to oppression?

There are other examples of such contradictions, but this is to be expected in a country that intends to abandon 60 years of secular government. Another article states that “Al-Azhar is an encompassing independent Islamic institution, with exclusive autonomy over its own affairs, responsible for preaching Islam, theology and the Arabic language in Egypt and the world. Al-Azhar Senior Scholars are to be consulted in matters pertaining to Islamic law…The post of Al-Azhar Grand Sheikh is independent and cannot be dismissed. The method of appointing the Grand Sheikh from among members of the Senior Scholars is to be determined by law…The State shall ensure sufficient funds for Al-Azhar to achieve its objectives.”


What is Al-Azhar, which the constitution enshrines as a virtual Supreme Court? Al-Azhar University and its associate mosque was founded in the 10^th century, and hardly seems to have updated its thinking. Technically an institution of learning (or at least since 1961, when non-religious were allowed) its purpose is to impose an “Islamic” definition to it. In the past, the institution has had a dim view of freedom of speech, although it did criticize Mursi’s actions and called on him to suspend his emergency actions and engage the opposition. However, the fact that the constitution actually requires the government to fund a religious institution to insure not just the institution’s—but what the constitution’s crafters want the government to do—suggests another obstacle to true democracy and free thought.

There is a great of deal of support for an “independent” judiciary in the constitution, but what it means by “independence” is subject to interpretation. The acceptance of Sharia over secular law also has principles somewhat odd and potentially unjust to the Western mind. For example, take what is called “hudud” offenses: Theft, being a member of an outlaw gang, “illegal sexual intercourse”—presumably adultery and sex outside of marriage—slander, alcohol consumption and blasphemy. While theft and robbery are obviously crimes, the other “offenses” are not necessarily criminal offenses in the West. The “slander” charge could just as well be a defense against criticism of political or religious leaders. In a Sharia court, confessions and oral testimony are acceptable forms of evidence (the testimony of men are given more weight than that of women). Justice for non-Muslims who are victims of crimes by Muslims is difficult in Sharia courts, since the testimony of non-Muslims against is in many cases forbidden. It is also interesting to note that for all the interest in “science” in the constitution, it should be observed that this is in reference to Islamic standards; for example, forensic evidence, like DNA and fingerprints, is not considered “evidence” in a Sharia court. 

Will Egypt be a “true” democracy if its new constitution passes? Outside of Turkey, there is no democracy in the Islamic world that the West would consider workable in their own countries, or vice versa. If the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies who control the presidency and the legislature have their way, we might see something akin to 1933 Germany, when the Nazi’s subverted democratic institutions, ignored the Weimar Constitution (while never “officially” scrapped until 1946) and the government was simply a reflection of an ideology that accepted no opposition.