[/caption]
It has been an entertaining couple of weeks in Egyptian politics. First there was the will-he-won’t-he drama surrounding Abu Ismail, the ultra-conservative Salafi who was facing disqualification from next month’s presidential elections over claims his mother was American.
Then the Muslim Brotherhood surprised everyone by completing a jaw-dropping political U-turn, breaking last year’s cast iron pledge and putting forward their own presidential candidate.
As if things couldn’t get any more intriguing – and as if last year’s uprising had never even happened – Omar Suleiman, former President Hosni Mubarak’s spy chief, dropped a bombshell and announced his own candidacy for the race.
But all of it appears to have come to nothing when Egypt’s electoral commission upheld a ban on 10 presidential candidates, including all of the aforementioned contenders.
In terms of top notch political theatre, it was pure London Palladium – but there is also a farcical whiff of Punch and Judy too.
This is perhaps best summed up by the battle being waged over Egypt’s new constitution.
Right now, nobody knows for sure what powers the country’s first post-revolutionary president will wield.
This is because the assembly tasked with drafting a fresh constitution – and thus defining the remit of Egypt’s highest office – recently imploded amid squabbling between MPs.
It is still unclear whether a new constitution will be drafted before elections due to start on May 23. Field Marshall Hussein Tantawi, Egypt’s de facto president, has said he wants one before the poll.
But other political groups say that is impossible, pointing to the lengthy periods which were required to draft previous Egyptian constitutions.
Then there is the debate about the nature of the document itself. Most of the main political parties involved agree that in contrast to Egypt’s previous 1971 constitution, whatever comes next should be decidedly less presidential.
Since the time of Sadat, Egypt’s leader has enjoyed substantial powers. Treaties and agreements could be signed off without the approval of MPs, criminals pardoned and parliaments dissolved at will.
According to Shaheer George, a leading figure in the liberal Freedom Egypt Party, much of that needs to change. “We cannot have a president who interferes with legislation,” he said. “He should have the right to dissolve the parliament only after consultation between the parliament and president. But he should not be able to dissolve it without a referendum.”
Another bone of contention has been the influence of political Islam. The previous constitutional assembly, half of which was composed of members of parliament, broke up over concerns from liberals that Islamist MPs had too much sway.
Speaking to Egypt Unwrapped recently, Dr Amr Darrag, a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s political wing, argued that it was his party’s right to dominate the assembly, given how many seats the group won during the recent parliamentary election.
He also swept aside concerns that political Islam would feature too strongly in the next constitution, noting that under Article Two of the 1971 document – which states that Islam is the primary source of all legislation – the religion was already represented.
Under the terms of the new constitutional assembly, no MPs will be involved in the drafting process – effectively emasculating the Muslim Brotherhood, whose members control nearly half of parliament.
This has provided some comfort to the secularists who fear Brotherhood’s influence. But given how rapidly political fortunes have changed over the past two weeks, nobody can be sure what surprises this election campaign will continue to throw up.
