Mark Lehtonen

Islamism and Egypt's New Constitution

by Mark Lehtonen

Beginning on January 25 of 2011, Egypt, inspired largely by the recent Tunisian revolution, experienced a wave of popular uprisings that would ultimately lead to the ousting and prosecution of President Hosni Mubarak. The (mostly) non-violent campaign sought to put an end to corruption and abuse of government power, as well as establish free elections, free speech, and higher minimum wage, adding Egypt to the ranks of the growing list of countries experiencing what is widely referred to as the “Arab Spring.”

Part of the process of restoring the government to functionality is the drafting of a new constitution, and on March 25, 2012, the Wall Street Journal published an article about the composition of the committee tasked with doing so: http://foundationsofislam.blogspot.com/p/egypts-islamists-set-to-dominate-new.html

The article explains that, following a vote by the newly elected post-revolution parliament, at least two thirds of the 100-member panel that will draft the new constitution are Islamists from the Freedom and Justice Party (a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood) and the Nour Party (a hardline Salafi Islamist organization). Some of the liberal, secular members of the panel have withdrawn in protest, effectively giving even more power to the Islamist majority. The article claims that the composition of the panel offers concrete evidence that the more moderate Islamists of the FJP are willing to cooperate with the Nour Party so long as the more liberal members of the panel don’t get their way.

The delegates who have withdrawn will be replaced from a pool of 50 alternates that were also elected by the Parliament. According to rules adopted by the Parliament earlier, 50 members of the constitutional panel must be members of Parliament, and the other 50 noted academics, religious leaders, political figures and activists. However, liberal activists have noted that the latter half as it exists now consists mostly of religious leaders, and very few constitutional experts and lawyers. The panel includes only six women and six members of Egypt’s Coptic Christian minority.

The Muslim Brotherhood has made assurances that the new constitution will not be heavily theocratic, but they have gone back on their word in other areas, making their true intentions uncertain. Many liberals fear the new constitution will place heavy emphasis on Sharia law and theocratic principles.

I think the article does a fair job of remaining unbiased. The general Western sentiment regarding Islamism is one of fear and loathing, but the article stays away from the use of negative and condemnatory language. There does seem to be an overall sense that the domination of Islamists in the committee may be a bad thing, but this derives more from America’s fragile political standing in the region rather than an anti-Muslim bias.

One problem with the article is an oversimplification of the relationship between various Islamist groups. The Nour Party is much more conservative than the Freedom and Justice Party.  Although together they comprise an Islamist majority, neither on its own makes up more than 50% of the committee. It is not entirely guaranteed that they can work together, and indeed the hardline Salafis may not be willing to compromise.

A larger issue raised by the article is the place of Sharia law in modern governmental systems. Are Sharia law and democracy compatible? Do we have any right to be concerned about the end result in Egypt if it comes about by democratic processes? Would an Islamist constitution even be as bad as we think?

Although many liberal Egyptians and Westerners are concerned over a new constitution that emphasizes Islamic law, there seems to be a tendency to ignore the fact that the old 1971 constitution already stated that Islamic law should form the basis of all legislation, and was interpreted loosely by the government.  At this stage it is hard to predict what a new constitution would change in terms of day-to-day life and freedoms. Part of the concern stems from our fear that all Islamist groups ultimately seek a world united under a new caliphate after the elimination of all non-Muslim societies. Although some ultra-conservative groups may believe this, most moderate Islamists simply desire the Qur’an and Sharia to be a strong moral foundation for their laws and government.

As a democratic nation, we constantly espouse the virtues and superiority of democratic principles. After the revolution, the Egyptian people elected their own parliamentary representatives. It is these elected officials who have chosen the committee to draft the new constitution, so the values reflected therein will, at least to some degree, reflect the will of the people. Do we have any right to judge or interfere with these processes in other countries, even if they yield results unfavorable to us? It is yet unclear whether or to what extent minorities would be subject to tenets of Sharia law, as well as what Egypt’s new take on foreign policy will be. It seems at this point that the best idea is simply to wait and see what happens.