Egypt’s first freely elected Parliament in more than 60 years sits for its first session on Monday, charged primarily with overseeing preparation of a new constitution after the ouster of the strongman Hosni Mubarak.
But even before the first call to order, the two most powerful players — the military council that took power after Mr. Mubarak’s downfall and the Islamists in the Muslim Brotherhood who dominated the parliamentary elections — appear to have settled on the broad outlines of Egypt’s next charter.
Evident points of accord include the creation of a presidential-parliamentary government, a legal system no more Islamic than the previous one and broad guarantees of freedom of religion and expression. There are signs that the two sides are also working toward agreement on the two most delicate questions: the degree of civilian oversight over the military and the potential grants of immunity from prosecution for military leaders.
A Western diplomat who has followed the matter, speaking on the condition of anonymity under standard protocol, said the Brotherhood and the ruling military council appeared to be negotiating effectively behind the scenes.
“From what I have seen, they could have the main outlines of a deal by the time the Parliament moves forward,” the diplomat said.
A member of the Brotherhood involved in its deliberations, also speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the group had been studying certain grants of immunity used in other political transitions to help induce military rulers to exit, and Brotherhood leaders have been floating hints of such possibilities in the Egyptian media, often followed by denials.
The signs of agreement have reversed expectations just a month ago of a coming clash between the Brotherhood-dominated Parliament and the military council. Their accord seems to have reassured Western diplomats that Egypt is moving toward a more democratic government. But the growing realization that the deal may have already been struck without public debate is evoking a mix of resignation, resentment and relief from liberals and human rights advocates.
With the Islamists and the military in positions of control, “the nonreligious forces, even though they are not saying this publicly, are sounding relieved,” said Hossam Bahgat, executive director of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights.
But at the same time, he added, “We feel that because of the military council’s mismanagement of the transition, we have been robbed of a historic opportunity to go through a transformative, healing process of asking who we are as a country and what we want our constitution to look like.”
“That is a distant dream now,” he said.
As recently as November, officials of the Brotherhood’s political arm were vowing that as leaders of Parliament they would challenge the military over its right to continue appointing the prime minister and the cabinet until after the ratification of a constitution and the election of a president, scheduled to take place by the end of June.
But last week, Brotherhood leaders began saying that they would leave the military-appointed government in place until June. And at a news conference on Sunday, several Brotherhood leaders said the constitution should be drafted on the military’s preferred timetable, before the election of a president, while the military still controls the government.
Experts on political transitions disapprove of that schedule because it could give the military undue influence over the constitutional process and allows only a few weeks for drafting a constitution, a process that would take far longer starting from scratch.
But on Sunday, the Brotherhood leaders said they were confident that all parties involved could work it out.
“We will cooperate with everyone,” Essam el-Erian, a senior leader of the Brotherhood’s party, said at the news conference, “the people, the Parliament, the cabinet and military council.”
The council, for its part, made a conciliatory gesture of its own, announcing that it would release more than 1,900 prisoners. Among them was the blogger Maikel Nabil, jailed nearly 10 months ago by a military court after repeatedly criticizing the military.
In interviews and public statements, leaders of the military and the Brotherhood have said that they believe most of the old Egyptian Constitution, drafted in 1971, can remain in place, with limited modifications to end Egypt’s imperial presidency.
That would leave in place an existing clause declaring the principles of Islamic law to be the sources of Egyptian law. But it would not tighten that clause to refer to more specific rules of Islamic law, as some ultraconservative Islamists have sought.
It would also leave in place the current provisions governing individual freedoms, which civil rights advocates consider adequate if enforced. The Brotherhood has also signed a declaration put forward by Al Azhar, a moderate center of Sunni Islamic learning here, that would protect broad freedoms for religious observance, artistic expression, scientific inquiry, theological dissent and civil society groups.
The Brotherhood initially sought to move to a British-style parliamentary system, which would play to its political strengths. But leaders of the Brotherhood and the military council have recently pointed toward a French-style mix of presidential and parliamentary powers, in which the Parliament might choose a prime minister to control the domestic government, while an elected president oversees foreign policy and national security.
Such a division of power would leave the military under a single commander in chief and could protect the Brotherhood from grass-roots pressure on vexing matters of foreign policy, like relations with Israel.
The overarching question is civilian oversight of the military. In November, the military reluctantly withdrew under popular pressure a set of binding ground rules for the constitution that would have completely insulated its budget and decisions from civilian scrutiny, preserving the privilege and autonomy it enjoyed under Mr. Mubarak.
But people following the issue, including at least one military officer close to the ruling council, now say that the military and the Brotherhood may find a compromise: only a limited number of elected officials would oversee the defense budget.
The previous Constitution and the military’s withdrawn guidelines both referred vaguely to a National Defense Council, which could describe such a committee.
There might also be provisions to amend the arrangement over time. Indeed, the Brotherhood leaders said on Sunday that, though cooperating, they will also be watching. “The Parliament comes with its fangs, not without them,” said Hussein Ibrahim, a leader of the Brotherhood party’s parliamentary bloc.
Mayy El Sheikh contributed reporting.
Source: The New York Times
No comments:
Post a Comment