|
CITIZENSHIP, RELIGION AND THE STATE
A stated purpose behind the proposed
constitutional amendments is to remove socialist principles that
are now outdated and restrictive with regard to Egypt’s vision
of political and economic reform. Within the context of democratization,
the idea of “uniting the forces of the working people”
that governed the socialist era is being replaced by a clearer concept
of citizenship, “mowatna.” The principle did exist in
previous constitutional drafts, but in the present one it has rightfully
taken center stage. In redefining the rights and responsibilities
of Egyptian citizens, the amended constitution would support equal
rights for all.
There is little disagreement that citizens of every race, creed
and gender should be held equal, and afforded equal opportunity
and justice before the law. Indeed, the idea of equal citizenship
holds universal appeal; by acting to institute and protect this
principle, the state will garner public support, and help restore
confidence in government.
The president has remarked that the proposed amendments will also
underline Egypt’s commitment to an open market and consequently
create a more favorable investment atmosphere. This is also positive.
Socialist policies affecting the economy have, in practice, long
been replaced with free market principles, so the current constitutional
reform can formalize this change, and make it the foundation for
future growth.
When people no longer rely entirely on the state as they did under
socialism, and when the state instead supports private enterprise
and citizens’ rights, people will become active agents in
the nation’s development. The only problem is that some of
the proposed amendments, particularly the omitted ones, may, from
a legal stand point, carry inherent contradictions to this goal.
Article 2, for instance, which is not up for amendment, is the subject
of crucial debate. It states that Sharia is “the main source
of legislation.” It should be noted that this article was
amended under Sadat, in the 1980 referendum, at a time when religion
was seen as a way for the state to counter the perceived threat
of communism. It read differently in the constitution of 1971, stating
that “Sharia is a main source of legislation,” not the
only main one.
While some wish to remove Article 2 altogether, there is a consensus
that it may be difficult to do so at this time. As the constitution
currently states, Islam is the national religion, just as Arabic
is the national language. But to maintain Sharia as “the main
source of legislation” may well present obstacles, not only
to the concept of equal citizenship that we desire, but to Egypt’s
political and economic development.
More specifically, it may facilitate future constitutional challenges
of certain basic financial and economic principles that have long
been established under Egyptian law. The un-enforceability of interest
is one example. As new laws become necessary to accommodate an evolving
economic reality, they could be challenged by a strong parliamentary
block, or, more importantly, by a particularly conservative constitutional
court at some point in the future, simply because they do not conform
to the strict interpretation of Sharia.
In other words, maintaining Sharia as “the main source of
legislation” could present obstacles to economic development,
but it could also undermine equal citizenship. If all citizens are
equal before the law, then everyone, no matter what their religious
beliefs, must adhere to the same principles. Therefore, when it
comes to Article 2, perhaps a compromise would be wise. Sharia could
be considered “a”, that is, one source of law, as the
1971 text of this article once read.
As Egypt strives to take its place in the global market, we’ve
seen the socialist experiment, including the nationalization of
industries and services, progressively reversed. The process of
shifting political and economic gears has been slow and painstaking,
but nevertheless relatively organic and non-violent. So far, we
have not followed in Turkey’s footsteps, where the military
was installed to enforce an imposed secularism.
The proposed Article 5, prohibiting religion-based political parties,
is another source of important debate. Predictably, it has been
critiqued by those who would like to see the governing principles
of the state match religious ones. But if religious practice is
the province of the individual, governance concerns society as a
whole. Most importantly, the separation of religion and state is
the most powerful means of guaranteeing people the right to worship
– or not – as they please, by protecting their rights
as citizens, while promoting tolerance and pluralism in society.
If Egypt is to be a democratic state based on national unity, social
justice and citizenship, especially in these divisive times, then
the equal rights of citizens take priority. The current amendments
offer a unique opportunity to clarify this vision of the future,
in which every citizen can take part. Only then will confidence
in government be restored, and will public participation in both
political and economic life achieve the force and momentum we need
to succeed.
TAHER HELMY
President, AmCham Egypt
Submit
your comment
Top
|
