On the Paradox of Voting

A lot of the western world still insists that the ballot box is more important than consensus, or perhaps even reflects it. But what good is voting between two options so polarized, with the votes so close. A 51 per cent majority on something as controversial as say, religious fascism, is not worth respect. Consensus is more important. It’s important to be voting about things that you can live with, rather than one thing that keeps you alive and another that can kill you. 

Determining majority has been outlined through elections, but what about consensus? What democratic tools are available from democracies that outline what consensus should be? One of the most important tools is a consensus constitution. This means that the basic rules should be within a framework acceptable by the vast majority. At the same time is that enough? I do not think vast majority is enough of a consensus, because we also need to ensure that minorities are respected. Perhaps this is a personal value judgement, but it’s not one I can compromise for the sake of the majority. 

If there is not enough consensus, elections become a tool to wage a war, rather than a means to resolve disputes. A dispute refers topics that are subject to different opinions, not different core values. There is a statement that we ‘must’ respect the outcome, but how can we respect the outcome if we don’t respect the question? How can we respect the outcome if we don’t respect the process?

There is a lesson here from countries in search of real democracy to those in the west happy in the limitation to the ballot box, that there’s consensus about the limits of majority will in democratic countries.

The power of democracy was never to ensure that the best happens, but that the worst does not. In a country like Egypt, the worst was not prevented, which goes to show that there was no point waiting for elections. The corollary to that could be that democracy was not in place and that’s why the worst happened. 

I will not draw links between what I wrote and this quote, in fact, I don’t really know if there is a direct link, but thinking about ideas of democracy and the ballot box particularly championed on from many western commentators reminded me of these words from Erich Fromm:

“Today we come across an individual who behaves like an automaton, who does not know or understand himself, and the only person that he knows is the person that he is supposed to be, whose meaningless chatter has replaced communicative speech, whose synthetic smile has replaced genuine laughter, and whose sense of dull despair has taken the place of genuine pain. Two statements may be said concerning this individual. One is that he suffers from defects of spontaneity and individuality which may seem to be incurable. At the same time it may be said of him he does not differ essentially from the millions of the rest of us who walk upon this earth.”

Elections First? Again?

With respect to numerous personalities asking for the constituent assembly to be elected and for constitution writing to be postponed, that makes no sense. First, we're in this mess because an elected president wrote the constitution ... second and more important, a constituent assembly must not be representative of society, it should represent the minorities more. That's why electing an assembly reflective of the majority will not work, because the problem is mostly in minority rights and fairness, and the revolution is about correcting the flawed power dynamics existing in society.

It's understandable that those who are 'chosen' to write the constitution may not be to our liking, but postponing the writing of the constitution till a president is elected will weaken public pressure. That's why this is a time to press for the constitution and for its writing process through direct action and open debate rather than formal means which we have no guarantees will be established fairly.

Rebuttal of Guardian's "Egypt: building on sand"

One of the few instances where I took the time to write a point by point rebuttal of a very flawed editorial published in the the Guardian. Lately their editorials have been terribly flawed and have ignored the reporting published in their own paper which is far more accurate and on point.

Egypt: building on sand

The irony of having won this particular constitutional battle is that Morsi has emerged from it with weaker powers

Not all founding fathers are as fondly remembered as America's. The three men who carved up the Soviet Union in Stalin's hunting lodge in Belovezhskaya forest are not today revered as scions of a new order.Egypt's constitution, which appeared to have been passed on Sunday by 64%, has also had a turbulent birth. The result itself came from a low turnout and there were claims of election fraud. The crisis started when Egypt's Islamist president, Mohammed Morsi, awarded himself the power to push through a draft that had not been agreed, prompting a stream of resignations.

That's not where the problem started, that's when it became evident. The problem started with the very important promises which Morsi made and broke, such as a new representative constituent assembly and a consensus constitution. He also sidelined all other political forces as well as a great many of his presidential team.

He said it was to stop the constitutional court from declaring the whole exercise null and void, but the judiciary revolted as a result. 

Is what he said enough to do away with very legitimate concerns about the decree? Furthermore it is not only the constituent assembly that he protected but Shura Council as well. He also appointed a biased General Prosecutor.  What did he have to say about all of this? 

Clashes between rival armed groups ensued :  

very inaccurate to describe it that way, but more importantly misleading 

up to 2 million Christians voted against the referendum and some leaders called for the president's removal. If this is a victory, it has been a costly one. 

Now if I knew nothing about Egypt, this would be a very strange way to express what happened after, for starters, which leaders asked for his removal? It was the people on the streets but 'leaders' had only asked him to rescind his declaration before negotiations. If there's something I'm missing about leadership and their calls let me know. Not to mention the 2 million votes from Christians implies that this constitution angered Christians. It could have been to indicate the split in that department but it is ambiguous, paints an incomplete picture and it's shallow. 

The revolutionary unity seen fleetingly in Tahrir Square has been shattered. 

How about the new unity found? What unity in Tahrir had been shattered? It was not a result of this declaration but two long years of splits between islamists and all other forces, if anything there was a new unity with people who hardly left their 'couch'.

Mr Morsi was accused of behaving like a military dictator, 

He was accused of behaving like a dictator, not particularly of the military sort, but having legislative  and executive powers and putting himself above judiciary oversight is just an accusation? Particularly that he would not back down and hadn't rescinded his decrees but only the 'declaration?

but the irony of having won this particular constitutional battle is that he has emerged from it with weaker powers. 

Morsi the poor martyr, the constitution gives him less powers, leaves him all alone without a vice president and without powers. Sarcasm aside, how is that an honest statement? The problem with Morsi is the control of a group over the country not just particularly himself, where in this editorial does it point to that real problem of the MB guidance council ruling instead of even just Morsi? It is also naive to think that appointments where he signs his name detracts power considering how much pressure he can apply through other powers he has through the constitution. 

Under the terms of the new constitution, he cannot interfere with any judicial appointment but only sign the names offered to him by the supreme judicial council. His legislative powers revert to the upper house of parliament, the Shura council, pending the elections of the lower house. This is loaded in favour of the Islamists and Mr Morsi will struggle to make it more representative even by nominating more members of the Coptic orthodox, Catholic and Protestant churches to it, as he did on Sunday. But he has promised to put amendments to the controversial articles of the constitution to the first session of parliament, if agreement can be reached between the major political parties.

See previous statement about Shura council, the word struggle is true but not in the sense implied by this writer. The statement sounds as though he were not responsible for the situation we're all in. We've seen all the promises of Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, they mean nothing. Also ignored is the fact  he could have called off the referendum but was more interested in getting passed in any way, breaking the promise of not putting it up for a public referendum without consensus, clearly there wasn't. People didn't even make it to 67% agreement which was the minimum for the constituent assembly, meaning that it wasn't representative, an important point while trying to make it out that Morsi is trying reach an agreement.

In his wish to speedily install a new order, Mr Morsi cut corners, at times dangerously. His emergency decree overriding all judicial oversight was cast much too wide. Verbal violence soon became physical after a tent encampment outside the presidential palace was broken up violently.  The opposition claimed they were beaten, detained and tortured. The Muslim Brotherhood insist they were shot at hours later. These scenes were a disaster for a president who has vowed to represent not just Islamist Egypt but all Egypt.

Who broke it up? Not mentioned, also the opposition claim and the MB insist, fine if you're going to take sides, but at least make it clear that Morsi's MB men called for this break up and their supporters actually executed it, meaning the president and his group were directly responsible, this article makes it out like these events just happened spontaneously. The scenes were prompted by political action, not just an accident like the train hitting the Assuit. This is an important distinction as it is affects the picture painted by this editorial. It's an opinion, but making the facts ambiguous to drive a point is either ignorant or dishonest.

The polarisation is not likely to lessen with these results.

To be fair that's the one thing in the entire piece that may not be misleading. 

Despite the low turnout, the Brotherhood will claim 64% as a decisive victory. Mr Morsi has seen his vote go up in some areas of the country that voted for his rival Mr Ahmed Shafiq in the presidential election. For the secularist and liberal opposition, and many outside observers, the most telling statistic was the low turnout. It means the grand foundational text of the new Egypt is only actively supported by about one in five of the electorate. The decision of Egypt's Coptic church to call for a no vote, 

The church asks their constituency to participate, unsure when they called for no, but even if they did, why is it not mentioned that they were not involved in writing the constitution pulling out after their input was ignored? It's not the duty of the writer to write all the facts, but those that are relevant an help. That aside, it doesn't make sense to single them out as calling for that no vote, even Abdel Monem Abol Fottouh called for it, along with numerous other forces in the country. This in relationship to the next line also seems to push forward the idea put forward by the Muslim Brotherhood that Christians are the main actors behind the opposition.

at a time when the imams held back, 

Factually not true, see Alexandria Mosque one week prior and see Imam who was transferred from his post because he refused to support the constitution, this is not just a biased opinion, it's a lie.

is a sign of deep tensions. After such a decision, it becomes easier to characterise the polarisation as a religious one. 

If the facts are untrue, the conclusion is flawed.

Such a result might add weight to the view that the conflict was not about an Islamist constitution, but about two very different visions of society: a defined identity-based project to see a more Islamised Egypt; and a more pluralist vision of a democracy, with multiple identities. But the problem is also a practical one. No one behaved as if they wanted to build a pluralist society. 

Add weight to the view, so flawed information which leads to a flawed conclusion is all to add weight to this idea? Also no one behaved as if they wanted a pluralist society? Liberals have long accepted Article 2 of the constitution? Saying 'no one' is a very weak argument.  When you say both sides are wrong, you're covering up for one of them, usually the stronger side. Other sides weren't given a chance. Also remember that El Baradie was inclusive about including the Muslim Brotherhood in the Egyptian Association for change despite everything.

The art of compromise was not much in evidence. Mr Morsi started out with the intention of creating a broad tent involving minorities – but that approach also depended on the ability to keep everyone inside that tent. The last few months have made that increasingly difficult. The one hope is that this result encourages both side to fight the parliamentary elections.

What is he driving at? Honestly I just don't understand the reasoning, how does polarisation turn into hope through fighting for parliamentary elections. Why is there a message to move on about the constitution despite fraud  which the writer himself mentioned and more importantly no consensus? How can a society split up moved past a non consensus constitution with a low turn out and low percentage in favor at that?

President Morsi's task is now clear. 

Clear to who?

It is not to entrench the divide but to reach across it to all Egyptians, Christian or Muslim, secular or religious, liberal or conservative. 

The entire piece ignores Morsi's role in all this.He took measures to divide in the first place as if it were his task, so how is it clear that his task has now changed?

 Mr Morsi's will have only established a constitution worthy of the name when that happens. 

Has the writer even read the constitution? The constitution itself helps widen the gap, the Christians he wishes to bring closer were not consulted, the MB have issued statements accusing them of being at the protests and being behind all opposition and the No votes. This is on their official site. The writer can pretend that the constitution articles have nothing to do with it, this is something I can only disagree with and it would be unfair of me to put it in the category of inaccurate facts but rather laziness or poor reasoning. Overall, aside from the factual inaccuracies, unreasonable conclusions and the generally poor quality, this editorial paints a very inaccurate simplistic picture, awfully close to propaganda.

The Rigged Constitution

Opponents of Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi hold pamphlets urging a "no vote" on a constitutional referendum as cars burn during clashes between supporters and opponents of President Mohammed Morsi in Alexandria, Egypt on Friday. (AP)

So the referendum is obviously rigged, not only are Misr 25 channels announcing the results 3 hours before the polls close, all day there has been consistent reports of violations in favour of the ‘Yes’ vote. Non stamped papers, no anti-fraud ink, people not finding their names, people not being admitted inside the voting stations, judges not present, ballot stuffing, you name it. I won’t.

It’s not a surprise at all that this referendum is rigged. The amount of rigging is proportionate to the ‘No’ bias. These many violations and this much rigging indicate that there is a strong effort on the part of the regime to falsify the will of the people. I’ve always said that a regime that does not respect your life will not respect your vote. On December 5, 2012, Morsi the supposed president of Egypt sent his Muslim Brotherhood militia to disperse a peaceful sit-in and then attack protesters using firearms, teargas and he had them set up a torture camp to force confessions.

In light of such atrocious measures, one can only conclude that the regime is adamant about getting its way. They see the constitution as a way of attaining their goals. Whatever their goals are, their means doesn’t indicate that it is anything good.

Many foreign observers have been devoid of logic, unable to comprehend the referendum or the actions of a vicious regime that sent in vicious brainwashed supporters to uphold an illegitimate decree of an autocratic party. It seems that almost two years of revolution have taught them nothing. They will still make their inaccurate predictions and then claim that Egypt is unpredictable.

The answer to the referendum is a resounding ‘No’. Not just because of rigging, and not just because a majority of people have been alienated by Ikhwan’s autocratic policies. It’s because the constitution was not written by Egyptians, it was monopolized by one faction.

A rigged constitution does not go a long way. It is as fragile as the parliament rigged by Mubarak’s regime. That’s why parliament was first to go in the revolution. The regime knew it had no legitimacy despite its legality. This constitution is the same, the more forceful they are, the harder they will break. It is impossible now for Ikhwan to rule with stability. There is no reason why people should accept them in power, no saving grace. They are counting on intimidation and pushing forward a false legitimacy, but even Mubarak knew that you need to throw the dog a bone. Egyptians are not dogs anymore though, they are becoming fierce predators who will find a way to take down whoever gets between them and what they think is theirs.

In All Cases, the State of Emergency

“In all cases, the announcement of a state of emergency will be for a limited time period not exceeding 6 months,” so says article 59 of the provisional constitution. ‘In all cases’, that’s a very powerful phrase and it’s not a mistranslation either. It did not say in ‘all of the above cases’ or ‘in most cases’ or ‘in all relevant cases’. The absoluteness of this statement is beyond contention. Since this is the constitution we’re plagued with, we must follow this rule.

According to Tarek El Bishry, who headed the committee to write the new constitutional declaration, the emergency law has ended on 19 September, 6 months after the referendum. 

I personally think it will end on 30 September, 6 months after the adoption of the provisional constitution on 30 March .

In any case, we know that we were in a state of emergency when the SCAF announced that military trials will be ongoing as long as the emergency law is active. That happened even before the events of the Israeli embassy on 9 September and the announcement that the emergency law was necessary.

The SCAF on the other hand, thinks that Mubarak’s declaration of the extension of the emergency law is still valid till June 2012. They are gravely mistaken. Article 62 states "All laws and regulations decided upon before the publication of this Announcement remain valid and implemented; however, it is possible to cancel laws or amend them according to the rules and procedures adopted in this Announcement."

This means that any law in conflict with the new constitutional declaration needs to be amended to match the constitution, which means the decision taken in 2010 to extend the emergency law is void because it is in direct conflict with the constitution and constitutions supersede any law. The SCAF do not have the power to extend the emergency law in absence of a parliament and a popular referendum.

Article 59

The president of the republic, after taking into account the opinion of the cabinet, can announce a state of emergency as stipulated in law. He/she must present this announcement to the People’s Assembly within the seven subsequent days to decide its view on this matter. If the state of emergency is announced in a period of recess, the Assembly must be called back to session immediately to review the matter, taking into account the time limit mentioned above. If the People’s Assembly is dissolved, the matter will be reviewed by the new Assembly at its first meeting. A majority of the members of the People’s Assembly must agree to the announcement of a state of emergency. In all cases, the announcement of a state of emergency will be for a limited time period not exceeding 6 months. It is not permissible to extend it, except after a people’s referendum on the matter and their agreement to an extension.

In all cases, we cannot be in a state of emergency for more than six months. Yet we are. The real state of emergency is a military dictatorship that does not respect the constitution or the law or any of its citizens for that matter. The real problem is that we have no means of respecting the law as long as the enforcers themselves are the law breakers.

Article 56: A Referendum Disrespected

I know I’m revisiting an old topic, but perhaps it is not clear to some that the referendum has been disrespected and the constitution has no legitimacy.

What was the referendum about? The answer is not as complex as some people make it out to be. It was a referendum to change eight articles of the 1971 constitution. Argue what you will about what you thought it was, that is what was written and that is what you signed. It wasn’t about Article 2 of the constitution as some made it out to be and it wasn’t about the legitimacy of the Supreme  Council of Armed Forces (SCAF) as others claim. It was all written in the document signed by millions of Egyptians.

It makes no sense to argue that the referendum was something other than was written. Why would it be? Why would they not write what it truly was? If you signed a cheque for a million pounds, is it a valid argument to claim that you were told it meant a hundred pounds? It would only make sense if you hadn’t read what you signed, and that would be foolish anyway.

The reason we have to be crystal clear about what the referendum was about is to understand whether it was respected or not. The truth, plain and simple: It was not.

What was supposed to happen?

Had the referendum been respected, the ’71 constitution would have been brought back to life with the eight articles amended and any contradiction removed. This meant, however, that the head of the constitutional court would take charge of Egypt, something the SCAF would never allow.

Assuming for a ludicrous moment that respecting the referendum meant a new constitutional declaration that nullifies the ’71 constitution, what would it entail? It would mean adding articles from ’71 constitution along with the eight new articles voted in. Even though this scenario would have contradicted the text in the referendum, it still would have been acceptable.

What actually happened?

What actually happened is nothing short of a disaster. The SCAF added seven of the eight articles voted in by Egyptians, altered one of them and declared a new constitution. They added a grand total of 57 more articles that no one agreed to or was aware of. Although many articles were compliant with the dreaded ’71 constitution, the number of crucial and dictatorial articles added was almost as many as those voted on.

The real disaster however is article 56, which grants the SCAF the powers of a dictator. The article states:

The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces deals with the administration of the affairs of the country. To achieve this, it has directly the following authorities:

1)      Legislation

2)      Issuing public policy for the state and the public budget and ensuring its implementation

3)      Appointing the appointed members of the People’s Assembly

4)      Calling the People’s Assembly and the Shura Council to enter into normal session, adjourn, or hold an extraordinary session, and adjourn said session.

5)      The right to promulgate laws or object to them.

6)      Represent the state domestically and abroad, sign international treaties and agreements, and be considered a part of the legal system of the state.

7)      Appoint the head of the cabinet and his/her deputies and ministers and their deputies, as well as relieve them of their duties.

8)      Appoint civilian and military employees and political representatives, as well as dismiss them according to the law; accredit foreign political representatives.

9)      Pardon or reduce punishment, though blanket amnesty is granted only by law.

10)   Other authorities and responsibilities as determined by the president of the republic pursuant to laws and regulations. The Council shall have the power to delegate its head or one of its members to take on its responsibilities.

I am quite certain that if a law suit were to be filed against the SCAF for their actions in disrespecting the referendum, the court would rule against them. However, as things stand, the SCAF control everything and so fairness is not an option.

Other articles that were not part of the referendum or the 1971 constitution are 57, 58, 59, 61, 62. Article 189 was transformed into article 60 with changes contrary to the referendum which accepted the article as it was.

What does it all mean?

The intentional disrespect of a nationwide referendum is symptomatic of a dictatorship that did not end with the fall of Mubarak. If a person’s vote has not been respected in a referendum that the SCAF itself designed, then how will it be respected in the upcoming elections?

Those calling for a constitution before elections are not disrespecting the referendum in any way. It is the SCAF that disrespected the referendum, the revolution and the entire country. These are greedy men who will never relinquish control.

Article 54

Article 54 of the Egyptian Constitution

Art.54: Citizens shall have the right to peaceful and unarmed private assembly, without the need for prior notice. Such private meetings should not be attended by security men. Public meetings, processions and gatherings shall be allowed within the limits of the law.

The funny thing is that I found this on the Egyptian government's website.

Impact of Constitutional Amendments

There’s a question going on in some heads as to the impacts of the constitutional amendments. Some people have already made up their minds as to what the impact will be. Those in the National (un)Democratic Party have a very accurate idea as to what the impacts in the future will be, other thinkers have a close to accurate imagination of how things will be like in the future. The question that concerns me now is the immediate impact of these changes, say within the next month or so.

The truth be told, these constitutional changes have a very positive immediate impact. No I’m not someone from the National Democratic Party, nor am I insane, I’m just an observer. These changes that will cause the Egyptians misery for at least a half a century or more in the future will buy them one or two months of joy. After the complete forgery of the referendum and the government’s “To hell with the people, we can do whatever we want,” the people feel that they’ve been the victim of a bitter oppression and an all round scam. There is a great force of hatred and rebellion instilled into the hearts of Egyptians for being enslaved in their own country and treated with disrespect. Not only that, but they feel that the little hope of democracy that was preached before the amendments to the constitution was just that false remission of a dying man before he parts with life. All reforms from now on will be close to meaningless.

This feeling of hatred and rebellion and general disdain is felt by the government who has forcefully had its way. It is like the biggest slap in the face to the public, and an angry public it is. So, in light of all this the government has no choice but to contain the people’s anger. The general methodology used to achieve this containment is by use of distraction. I must say that this method is highly successful with Egyptians whose lives are so cluttered with venoms that one small breath of fresh air can act like a sedative to dress their many open wounds. This happened before with the African Cup when people turned their attention to the national team and forgot everything else. Notice that every time a political disaster happens, an unairable football match is aired.

This sort of distraction may seem naive but it works. It really does. But since the constitutional amendments are bigger than anything else, there are supplementary distractions. These other distractions are in the form of easing the oppression inflicted upon us by government institutions. For example they’ve decreased the amounts payable to traffic tickets to the minimum amount, such that 4 tickets cost me only 40 L.E instead of the usual 600 L.E that may have been forced upon me. Of course one ticket is at a place I’ve never been before in my life, nor do I know where it is exactly but that’s beside the point, some things just can’t change no matter what the big heads say. So this has been in effect since the start of March, in an attempt to absorb their anger, so that not everything they deal with is complete and utter crap.

In light of that I expect that traffic officers will be a bit more lenient, that the new telephone billing rates will be slightly postponed and that more UEFA matches will be aired on television. I write this as they’re airing Liverpool vs. Einderlacht. In any case this next month might be great for Egyptians. It’s the ice they will be pouring after the big slap, ease the pain a little till they can legitimately screw us over. I always thought of myself as a realist, but it seems to me that this outlook is rather optimistic. You can expect them to go a little easy on these thousand and one annoying things so that people just don’t explode.

If I were the government what else would I do? Well I’d certainly go easy on arrests, go easy on angry bloggers, go easy on freedom of expression. I’d try to control the prices better, tell the government officials to take it slow on the corruptions and bribes. Give those poor people who work day and night a raise. Offer better services to people, control the scandals that take place in hospitals, make life easier for the people. But wait!! That’s actually making this country a better place, that totally conflicts with government objectives, it’s pushing it a little too far. I mean that’s something they can do, but it would be political suicide. It would give Egyptians some fresh air and make them feel they’re humans and that they have rights. I know I pushed it a little too far. I honestly don’t know what I would do if I were the government, they have a tough job at keeping people neither too well off to live a happy life nor too oppressed to start a revolution.