The Egyptians did not live a day today either. Go to the polls, something that let them do in the past three decades. But what is new this time is that they will vote in a query whose result is not known in advance. Hosni Mubarak, who was ousted Feb. 11, did not know much about democracy, but in thirty years did not have a single bad polling day.
Now, this Saturday, the Egyptians will be decided in a referendum on limited constitutional reform proposed by the military leadership which entails the change. The Egyptian army, led by Marshal Mohamed Tantaui not surprising. First, the outbreak of the revolt against Mubarak, declared itself neutral to the satisfaction of the Youth Coalition January 25, which was the origin of the protest, then ousted as its chief for three decades, and now in a hurry to start reform progress.
But the rush of the military, whose custody reassure Western leaders may be a bad adviser, as the opposition feared. The military leadership has wasted no time. Nothing else take charge of the demonstration, the military appointed a committee to amend the 1971 Constitution, which was suspended, as the Parliament after the coup.
And the committee also slept: in ten days did their homework. The Egyptian electorate, however, has not had much time-only three weeks to review the proposal. The fundamental law of 1971 was not known, but the proposed changes now spends three quarters of the same. And if Cairo is a real political hotbed, as I found this week, not all of Egypt (forty million voters) are expressed in Tahrir Square.
The constitutional changes that will be submitted to a referendum today cleared some of the questions that troubled the opposition, but raise others. The committee has proposed that the presidential term is four years (previously six), limits presidential terms to two, reduce the power of a new leader to declare or to extend the state of emergency in force since 1981, and, for forward, proposing a new constitution.
These amendments have confused the public and politicians and activists divided into two camps. On the one hand, supporters of the referendum itself, yet remains powerful as the National Democratic Party, the strength of Mubarak, who see no need to hurry to have a constitution from scratch.
And secondly, those who say that today's referendum is only legitimize the rest of the Constitution with which ruled Mubarak. The breakaway faction, which calls for no, are the activists that led the revolt, the opposition parties and two candidates for president: Amr Moussa, who is leaving the General Secretariat of the Arab League, and Mohamed ElBaradei, Nobel Prize Peace 2005.
One of the complaints of the opposition stressed that the proposal would leave virtually untouched the powers of the president, who, according to sources close to the process, it would take to be 85 to 50. The military did not hurry to write another constitution, but do have to hold legislative and presidential elections.
And the breakthrough want the opposite. "Keeping the Constitution of Mubarak, even temporarily, is an insult to the revolution," said ElBaradei. But why the rush to each other? The opposition parties and activists, believe that if elections are held within six months, as announced by the military leadership, they will be the big losers.
Do not have time to organize and the advantage is for members of the old regime, ie for the military and the politicians who have been saved from the burning of the National Democratic Party, a specialist in elections whose outcome is known beforehand. The other benefit would be the Muslim Brotherhood, with extensive experience in mobilizing their own.
Eighty years of history have made them cautious and organized. So they want to be legal, say yes and asked that the constitution should be expected. The brotherhood was considered in recent years as the only possible agent of change. There has been, since the revolt has taken the lead, but now it can be decisive, with their votes, that the constitutional changes are approved.
And if they are rejected, will be a blow to the military leadership, will have to write another constitution and postpone elections. The breakthrough confident that the outcome is not known in advance. 
Now, this Saturday, the Egyptians will be decided in a referendum on limited constitutional reform proposed by the military leadership which entails the change. The Egyptian army, led by Marshal Mohamed Tantaui not surprising. First, the outbreak of the revolt against Mubarak, declared itself neutral to the satisfaction of the Youth Coalition January 25, which was the origin of the protest, then ousted as its chief for three decades, and now in a hurry to start reform progress.
But the rush of the military, whose custody reassure Western leaders may be a bad adviser, as the opposition feared. The military leadership has wasted no time. Nothing else take charge of the demonstration, the military appointed a committee to amend the 1971 Constitution, which was suspended, as the Parliament after the coup.
And the committee also slept: in ten days did their homework. The Egyptian electorate, however, has not had much time-only three weeks to review the proposal. The fundamental law of 1971 was not known, but the proposed changes now spends three quarters of the same. And if Cairo is a real political hotbed, as I found this week, not all of Egypt (forty million voters) are expressed in Tahrir Square.
The constitutional changes that will be submitted to a referendum today cleared some of the questions that troubled the opposition, but raise others. The committee has proposed that the presidential term is four years (previously six), limits presidential terms to two, reduce the power of a new leader to declare or to extend the state of emergency in force since 1981, and, for forward, proposing a new constitution.
These amendments have confused the public and politicians and activists divided into two camps. On the one hand, supporters of the referendum itself, yet remains powerful as the National Democratic Party, the strength of Mubarak, who see no need to hurry to have a constitution from scratch.
And secondly, those who say that today's referendum is only legitimize the rest of the Constitution with which ruled Mubarak. The breakaway faction, which calls for no, are the activists that led the revolt, the opposition parties and two candidates for president: Amr Moussa, who is leaving the General Secretariat of the Arab League, and Mohamed ElBaradei, Nobel Prize Peace 2005.
One of the complaints of the opposition stressed that the proposal would leave virtually untouched the powers of the president, who, according to sources close to the process, it would take to be 85 to 50. The military did not hurry to write another constitution, but do have to hold legislative and presidential elections.
And the breakthrough want the opposite. "Keeping the Constitution of Mubarak, even temporarily, is an insult to the revolution," said ElBaradei. But why the rush to each other? The opposition parties and activists, believe that if elections are held within six months, as announced by the military leadership, they will be the big losers.
Do not have time to organize and the advantage is for members of the old regime, ie for the military and the politicians who have been saved from the burning of the National Democratic Party, a specialist in elections whose outcome is known beforehand. The other benefit would be the Muslim Brotherhood, with extensive experience in mobilizing their own.
Eighty years of history have made them cautious and organized. So they want to be legal, say yes and asked that the constitution should be expected. The brotherhood was considered in recent years as the only possible agent of change. There has been, since the revolt has taken the lead, but now it can be decisive, with their votes, that the constitutional changes are approved.
And if they are rejected, will be a blow to the military leadership, will have to write another constitution and postpone elections. The breakthrough confident that the outcome is not known in advance.
No comments:
Post a Comment