HASSAN TAHSINI received several emails from readers about my column last week,“Egypt and the second republic”. Some of them supported me while others rejected my point of view with some suggesting that I am a diehard pessimist. But one of these emails, the shortest one, posed a simple question: What has led Egypt with its rich history to the current situation? Really, it is an appropriate and relevant question, but an answer can only be made after careful study and deliberation. In constitutional law, there are three fundamental principles that must be observed by all states whether they are autocratic or democratic without any exception. The first one is that the state has six pillars – people, territory, moral identity, rule of the law, political independence, and external sovereignty. As for moral identity and rule of the law, they do not involve any legal controversy. The second fundamental principle regards ways of framing the constitution while the third involves transferring power in countries where a republican model of government prevails. In Egypt, we have not followed any of these principles during the current transition period in which power has been transferred to a new regime. What happened in Egypt was that the revolutionary people, scholars of law and veteran politicians were unmindful of a host of mistakes that have pushed the country toward the entrance of a dark tunnel. Succumbing to unprecedented public pressure, the ousted president Hosni Mubarak took three decisions. The first was selecting Maj. Gen. Omar Suleiman as vice president. This decision was untimely and people rejected him as they judged him to be a close aide of Mubarak. The second decision was to appoint his close friend Lt. Gen. Ahmad Shafiq as prime minister. But his government lasted only for a few days and the increased public pressure forced the Supreme Military Council to oust him and appoint another prime minister. The third decision was to transfer the power and leadership of the state to the Military Council. This was an unconstitutional decision that was totally in violation of the amended constitution that came into effect in 2007. The new revolutionary government has neither revoked it nor stopped working in accordance with it. Let us examine these constitutional principles: Article 83: In case of resignation, the president shall address the letter of resignation to the People's Assembly. Article 84: In case of the vacancy of the presidential office or the permanent disability of the president of the republic, the president of the People's Assembly shall temporarily assume the presidency; and, if at that time, the People's Assembly is dissolved, the president of the Supreme Constitutional Court shall take over the presidency, however, on condition that neither one shall nominate himself for the presidency while abiding by the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 82. The People's Assembly shall then proclaim the vacancy of the office of president. The president of the republic shall be chosen within a maximum period of 60 days from the day of the vacancy of the presidential office. These articles make the modus operandi for a transition of power very specific and clear. But this way was not taken for many reasons. First of all, the revolutionary youths are not aware of the constitution and the rule of the law in general, and they do not have a strong and watchful leadership. Secondly, they do not follow the revolutionary procedures that could have prevented Egypt from sliding into the current highly complicated situation. The third reason is the neutral position of the armed forces with respect to developments that enabled the country's new leadership to take a key decision which was unconstitutional. The ignoring of the fundamental principles of the revolution and the ways of handling it have resulted in a chaotic political situation in Egypt. It has given Islamist parties an opportunity to exploit the situation in view of the fact that they are more organized, systematic and committed than other parties. Apart from this, the country's political parties are in a weak position. This is because some of these parties are still in the field but with their wings clipped by the ousted Mubarak regime while others were hurled into the whirling vortex of new developments under the cover of the revolution. Differences of opinion on constitutional principles have arisen, and questions have been asked, such as: Which must come first, the new constitution, the parliamentary election or the election of the president? There were divergent opinions and viewpoints regarding this, which enabled the Muslim Brotherhood to bring intensive political pressure to bear that forced the Military Council to give the go-ahead to the parliamentary elections. Differences remain about the framing of the new constitution. The delay in doing this was a great blunder. It was possible to rectify it, but the Military Council took the hasty decision to hold presidential elections. The preliminary results of the elections did not represent the opinion of the majority of the people. Those who exercised their franchise in the first round of elections amounted to less than half of the eligible voters in the country. This is the situation in Egypt. The majority of the people are not aware of the strength and tactics of the Military Council. The Egyptian people should realize that the army officers are shrewd enough to draw up tactics, to put them into practice, and to closely monitor them. The Military Council and its plans have been successful, as a military official has reached the last round of the election and may now be elected president of the republic. — Hassan Tahsin is an Egyptian writer and political analyst. He can be reached at htahsin
