Egypt: the nuances of writing a constitution
La seconda settimana del prossimo gennaio il progetto egiziano di Costituzione sarà sottoposto a referendum pubblico. Fino ad allora il progetto verrà accuratamente esaminato, sezionato, e valutato.
Anba Pola, vescovo di Tanta, rappresenta la Chiesa ortodossa copta nel Comitato che ha scritto il progetto di Costituzione, in questa intervista spiega le difficoltà incontrate durante la redazione.
Anba Pola, vescovo di Tanta, rappresenta la Chiesa ortodossa copta nel Comitato che ha scritto il progetto di Costituzione, in questa intervista spiega le difficoltà incontrate durante la redazione.
There
has been recent debate over claims made by a number of members of the
Committee of the Fifty that the wording of the Preamble of the Draft
Constitution underwent a last minute change before printing the draft,
thus changing the wording approved by the committee. It was claimed that
“civil rule” was changed into “civil government”. How does this affect
the draft?
First, we should not turn a wedding into a funeral
because of one word. We are all celebrating; why call the bride ugly?
This whole issue has been overblown by the media.
The
explicit mention of Egypt as a ‘civil State’ was never made in previous
constitutions because this was then an implicit given. Once Egypt
experienced a year [from June 2012 to June 2013] under Islamist rule by
the Muslim Brothers (MB), which Egyptians overthrew last July, the fact
that the country might come under the power of non-civil forces became
all too real. It became obvious then that the Constitution must
stipulate the civil nature of Egypt. Since the Islamists in the
committee objected to that, discussion of the issue was pushed—together
with a few other highly controversial issues—to the last minute in order
to avoid a climate of conflict.
It was finally decided to
mention “civil rule” in the Preamble, and also to define sharia, Islamic
law which the Constitution stipulates as the main source of
legislation, to be the historically proved, unambiguous interpretations
of sharia. We also decided that it was the responsibility of the Supreme
Constitutional Court, not any religious authority, to define shariain
the legal system. The Church and the seculars were adamant that sharia
should not be left to questionable interpretations, and we succeeded in
that.
Since national interest and inclusion of all Egyptian
sectors is our top priority, we were at one point willing to forego the
mention of “civil State” in the Preamble, since the Constitution in its
entirety secures the civil nature of the State. However, the Mufti
suggested the phrase “civil rule” to which everyone agreed.
On
voting day the head of the committee, Amr Moussa, read the text as
“civil government” and explained that it meant civil rule. This brought
about murmurs among the members, but they voted for it. When the final
draft was printed after the vote, the phrase read “civil government”. Mr
Moussa was under pressure to edit the phrase, but he decided to leave
it as is.
Where does Mr Moussa stand after that change?
Mr
Moussa understands the situation and his patriotic intentions are
beyond doubt. He made a sincere effort to reach consensus, so I see that
the change of phrase might have been to achieve balance. I would prefer
the original phrase, but if it leads to problems we can skip the whole
issue because of the Constitution’s many positive aspects. We have
written a constitution that takes into account all Egyptians; it was
completed by consensus.
But the 30 June Revolution slogan was all about recovering Egypt as a civil State?
The civil State provisions are enshrined in all the articles, even if not so unambiguously in the Preamble.
The
Salafis have said they are content with the Draft Constitution, even
though they opposed much of it before. How do you see the change in the
Salafi position?
The Salafis see things in the perspective
of their own interests, which is perfectly normal. What matters is the
final result, and they have supported the Draft Constitution.
I
respect the representatives of the Salafis, although they are
religiously extreme and hold an opinion about Christianity that does not
regard Christians as equal. I respect them because they are not
double-faced. They are opposite of the MB. They don’t stand up for the
national anthem or for a minute of silence to mourn the death of anyone,
but this is their belief.
Was there conflict between the Church and al-Azhar?
Al-Azhar
is a venerable Islamic institution of international standing and
renown. It leads Muslims just as the Church leads Christians. Despite
our differences, we—the Church and al-Azhar—agree on everything that
helps rebuild Egypt and doesn’t negatively affect any of us.
The
conflict was about considering al-Azhar the reference to interpret the
principles of sharia law, because that should be the job of the
Constitutional Court. After negotiations we decided to make al-Azhar the
“reference for Islamic affairs” which the Sheikh of al-Azhar said
denotes matters that relate to religion and al-Azhar.
The
third article says that ‘Christians and Jews’—as opposed to
‘non-Muslims’ in general—have the right to apply their own doctrines to
their family laws and choice of their religious leaders? This aroused
much debate.
Our first proposal was to cite ‘non-Muslims’ in
their entirety not only Christians and Jews. Al-Azhar, however, insisted
on rejecting this on account of religious reasons, and when al-Azhar
objects this means that so will all Muslims. So we discussed the issue
again and agreed to “Christians and Jews”.
How
can the word ‘civil State’ be real when the second article in the
Constitution sets Islam as the State religion, Arabic its language, and
Islamic ++sharia++ as the main source of legislation?
We
have to look to the Constitution as a whole. The Preamble states that
Egypt “embraced the Holy Virgin Mary and her Son”, and that Egyptians
“offered thousands of martyrs to defend the Church of Jesus Christ”.
This is a first for an Egyptian Constitution, the first acknowledgement
of Christian martyrs and of ‘Jesus Christ’ not His Islamic denotation as
Eissa the son of Mariam. It also includes Pope Shenouda’s famous quote:
“Egypt is not a country we live in, but a country that lives in us.” In
reference to the 30 June Revolution, it states: “…with the blessing of
al-Azhar and the national Church.” So the Constitution speaks of
Christians as an original part of this country.
There are also
articles which criminalise discrimination, stipulate absolute freedom
of belief, and specify legislating a modern law for building churches.
If
we say that the Constitution is for all Egyptians, where does it stand
on non-Muslim, non-Christian, and non-Jewish Egyptians, as Baha’is for
instance?
Baha’is in Egypt have already gained some
benefits including the right to legal papers that leave the religious
box vacant instead of citing them as Muslim. But they still face
countless problems, mainly on the social level. This can only be dealt
with through better public awareness, education, and acceptance of the
other.
How do you see the Islamist threats of violence once the Constitution is put to the vote?
A
Christian doesn’t fear. He stood with his Muslim fellow citizen to
defend the country during and after the 30 June Revolution. Copts were
brutally attacked by the Islamists, and their homes, businesses,
property and churches looted and burnt. The Islamist threats can’t
defeat the Constitution.
Does the positive discrimination for marginalised sectors cited in the Constitution guarantee Copts a quota in parliament?
From
Day One we have rejected a quota for Copts. Just look at Lebanon for an
example of what may happen if the community is sectorised. But we also
reject ignoring or marginalising Copts, or women and young people. We
also rejected the practice of the appointment of Coptic MPs by the
president of the republic, because the number of appointees was in all
cases non-representative of the volume of Copts in general, and because
an appointed MP doesn’t have full authority. Besides, the appointed
member is loyal to whoever appoints him, not to the people.
So how can positive discrimination be applied?
There
are many ways. If we speak about the individual system in elections,
constituencies could be smaller, and a seat may be allocated for the
marginalised sectors. With the slate system, the chances are even
better, because the lists may be made to include a Copt, a woman, and a
peasant for instance.
How about positive discrimination in jobs?
In this regard we need equality and anti-discrimination measures not positive discrimination.
The
Constitution allows for presidential elections ahead of parliamentary
elections. This contradicts the Roadmap for Egypt’s future drawn by the
country’s civilian and military leaders last July. What do you think of that?
I
had been strongly against tampering with the Roadmap. But now that the
security situation in Egypt is far from stable, I think that it is
better to hold the presidential elections first. Presidential elections
include a limited number of nominees, but parliamentary elections
involve thousands of candidates. We need a president first.
Source Watani International
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento