Ibrahim reviews: the Egyptian constitution

[Ibrahim90]

OK, so a new constitution has been ratified in Egypt this year. finally got a copy in the original Arabic, so that I could get an accurate assessment of what it dictates (I attach an English version). I think this should be an exercise to demonstrate what to do (or more often, what not to do), if people must insist on government. Anyways, here I go:

http://www.sis.gov.eg/Newvr/Dustor-en001.pdf

some rules:
-I'll start with rhetoric: clarity, conciseness, and neatness will be graded! a constitution must be explicit, otherwise we get "loose interpretation". I'm going to compare it to the 1971 consitution (amended). I'd attach it, but it is only in Arabic.

Preamble:

flowery language, especially for the times. the motivation is explicitly laid out nonetheless, with the desire to avoid corruption, safeguard religious and civil liberties, etc.

anyways:

Part I:

[spoiler]
-secession is a crime (article 1). clear enough, though redundant (ignoring principles here), since Egypt is a natural unit, and has been for over 5,000 years. It does acknowledge its African and Asian roots, and states that it will work on improving the lot of Arabs. again, redundant, and irrelevant to internal government, but what the hell, I didn't write the thing.
-a HUGE improvement to the previous constitution, is the establishment of the right to religious courts for Christians and, get this, Jews: this could be the door to establishing DRO's of a secular nature, and a return to the (superior) millet system. otherwise, Islam remains the state religion as in 1971 (which I don't mind--my bias, but also this is no more a potential issue than it is in Britain or Sweden) as it was in the old constitution.
-even better: they flipped the bird on socialism here! the 1971 constitution explicitly called for a socialist state. This constitution is pluralistic and democratic, with republican tendencies towards prioritizing rights (or so it claims--we'll get to it). While I'm no fan of democracy, this is still a direction forward. citizenship is more clearly defined, and guaranteed, and the concept of popular sovereignty is emphasized.

overall, concise, much shorter than the 39 article version from 1971, massive improvement.
[/spoiler]


Part II

[spoiler]
1. Social components:
-This is clearly an attempt to undercut the Saudis (and by proxy, the Muslim Brotherhood): basically they made the dean of Al-Azhar the Muslim Equivalent of the Archbishop of Cantebury. I wish things were more secular, but that's what we got: I don't like the development.
-generally, much is preserved from 1971's constitution--not good, since we need a more flexible education system then what they have, and medicine shouldn't be socialized in any way--even the German style method they use here, and unlike the '71, there is a private option allowed for. I am concerned about their desire to conform to international standards on this point, as different places have different demands (a lesson from the free market), and they may not have the money (not with Israel as a neighbor). Same for science research: here I can add that more money=/= better research. though at least they have their priorities straight compared to the US (ooh snap!). Overall, what they seem to have in mind is not all that different to what it is like in Germany: this is a massive issue, as Germany has a lot more money than Egypt, and can get away with it (and have for 140 years)
-One huge change is the removal of religious exceptions for women's rights restrictions: massive step forward.
-Compensation scheme for war veterans, families of martyrs: state got them killed or maimed, the state can make it up.
-while I don't like socializing education, the desire to inculcate human rights, and lack of provision for religious studies (the polar opposite of '71), is a step forward.

2.Economic:
-the best that can be said is that it is not as explicitly socialistic as the '71 consitution, but otherwise, most of the goals and policies are crap (notably the minimum wage laws, progressive taxes, etc), and in many ways are no different to the '71. private property rights are strong enough (N.B. "cooperative" property is not meant in the Soviet sense, don't worry). generally the government is allowed to achieve "social justice", but no explicit means are given. a worrying development.
-forcing people to save money is bullshit: I wish they'd cut that out. it was dumb in 1971, and dumb today.
-a new and worrying development: population control a la China is provided for

3. Cultural
-nothing new here, same old laws against trashing antiquities.

4. Human rights:
-MASSIVE improvement in the wording and clarity of laws regarding searches and seizures, trials, and the absolute nature of rights, than was in the 1971 constitution. more consice, better stated. Otherwise, it is largely derivative of the '71.
-in a move that puts the US to shame, transparency is massively improved.
-MASSIVE improvement regarding censorship: suspension in times of war or emergency has been limited. this shows Egyptians have learned from Mubarak's use of the '71's clause on the matter.
-One huge fail: ban on religious parties. this is especially as there is a state religion. This law makes no sense in light of article 2 (see above). either have no state religion and ban religious parties, or have both. This is clearly because of the Muslim Brotherhood.
-As usual, government is being intrusive on many personal aspects, especially in a redundant manner.
[/spoiler]


more to follow....and I'd like to hear your criticisms of the constitution. In general, this is clearly a derivative work of the 1971 constitution, With stronger guarantees for civil rights, a trend towards secularism (or at least religious pluralism), etc. some parts have improved substantially, but most are still shit. While they removed the socialist rhetoric in general, they still left in many of the ideas based on it. as with the '71, there are lots of redundancies, pointless clauses, over-intrusive elements, and as you saw so far, contradictions. It has all the hallmarks of a rush-job in its style, and the lack of a "clean slate" to the project hampers its potential (low as it would be).

[evensgrey]

I ther anything in there that will force a cleanup of Egypt's infamous system of property laws and construction regulations that mean that, for instance, legally building a regular, private home on an empty stretch of desert known to be of no cultural or historical significance requires an estimated 36000 hours of paperwork?

[Ibrahim90]

I ther anything in there that will force a cleanup of Egypt's infamous system of property laws and construction regulations that mean that, for instance, legally building a regular, private home on an empty stretch of desert known to be of no cultural or historical significance requires an estimated 36000 hours of paperwork?

nope--as mentioned, the constitution of 2014 is basically a derivative of the 1971 constitution. Having said that, the New Government might repeal it. hard to say: the laws in question are not part of the constitution.