Challenges for Secularism in Egypt

"No religion in politics!" A sentence that is often used by those who call themselves secular and/or liberal (the term 'secular' has mostly been shunned and 'liberal' or 'civil' became umbrella-terms for all non-Islamists) on the Egyptian political scene. But what does it really mean and is it an adequate slogan to represent the secular stream in Egyptian society (which is itself a diverse group of course)? Any spectator of current Egyptian affairs will have noticed the uneasy relationship between religion and politics which has become an omnipresent subject in almost all political discussions. The following is an attempt to explore the issue from a different angle.

It is not unusual for Egyptians to hear political opinions being laid out while attending Friday prayers, in fact, there have been some reports recently of skirmishes occurring within mosques because some felt the sheikh had crossed a line by endorsing a political party or condemning its political opponents openly. The line between politics and religion however, is very flexible and vague in a country where according to some interpretations of religion, it means more than just religion and becomes "religion and state". In the Coptic Church, the Pope's political opinions were criticized not just for their content but for their supposed influence on Christians. In other churches, especially after the revolution, certain political opinions of the leaders are identifiable as well. 

Many of those who call themselves secular have criticized clergy or religious preachers for openly expressing political opinions, but are men of religion only confined to talking about religion at all times? Can't they express political opinions purely in their capacity of Egyptian citizens? The reality is that one cannot and should not stop these men from expressing their views on politics, that's not to say there can't be internal regulations forbidding the use of the pulpits for political campaigning. The true problem, after all, is not that some people are using religion in political speech, it's when religious rules are enforced using state power and that is, in fact, what seculars should be fighting. The new constitution, for instance, determines that a body of the renowned Islamic institution Al Azhar is given the power to interpret religious rules which, in their turn, are the main source of legislation in the country.

Ironically, so-called champions of secularism in Egypt have themselves used religion in their campaigning, the "Egyptian Bloc", for instance, which consisted of three secular parties, used this banner, which reads "The Quran is our Constitution", a slogan often used by religious parties and those calling for a religious state.

Source: http://www.almasryalyoum.com//sites/default/files/imagecache/highslide_zoom/photo/2011/12/27/69411/27122011320.jpg

In one of his videos (AR) which was used as part of a campaign calling on people to vote no on the new Constitution in December 2012, Dr. Mohamed El Baradei, head of the secular Dostour Party, said: "we say no to the constitution because we want the Sharia".

In another instant, El Dostour party campaign flyers had been distributed to people attending Eid prayers. Muslim Brotherhood figure El Brens was reported saying that this signifies "the official burial of the saying 'No religion in politics'".

In a country where religion or at least the appearance or mention thereof play a big role in public life, can Egyptians have a meaningful political dialogue while completely shunning the subject? It is important that secular and/or liberals first know what it is exactly they are striving for and that they let go of slogans and/or methods which have proven unhelpful. As a political stream, they must reconcile with the idea that religion does play a big role in public life. Instead of calling for 'no religion in politics', it might be time to highlight the dangers of having religious rules forced on citizens by the state through legislation and the potential of abuse this has; while making clear that religion and religious freedom are respected. An important issue, for instance, has been the independence of Al Azhar. It should be made clear that no such independence can exist when the institution is given the power to interpret religious rules for the courts, thereby making it an important target for whoever is in power.

But above all, it is important for secular politicians to determine what they stand for on other issues, which will inevitably lead to their division in multiple parties based on their opinions on several social and economic questions (as opposed to one umbrella party that doesn't really stand for anything except its opposition to the Islamists). Political parties which are unable to reach citizens with well-researched programs and concrete plans for ways to take on the countries' many problems, will not get the citizens' votes. It is not enough to highlight the dangers of what the Islamist parties in Egypt are striving for, what is needed is an alternative. One that doesn't alienate the citizen nor patronize him or her and certainly one that respects that in Egypt, religion holds an important spot in many people's hearts. Egyptians don't need the government to teach them how to pray, instead, they require someone to create a legal environment where they can freely live and work, where economic growth can be achieved in a way that benefits all citizens, seculars should strive to be that someone. 

A different perspective on the dissolution of parliament

No one can deny the Egyptian transitional period has been a legal mess from the very beginning. Let's take the constitutional referendum for instance, in which citizens were asked to either approve or reject amendments made to the Constitution of 1971. Was there enough time between the publication of the final version of the amended articles and the referendum so a decent public debate could take place? Could we say that a reasonable person would have had sufficient information and time so as to make an informed decision? Questioning that was often made equal to questioning the intelligence of the Egyptian people which would result in one's branding as 'nokhba' (elite), and thus started the first chapter of The War of Words I wrote about before. 

After the referendum had taken place and a majority of the population had approved the revised articles, a Constitutional Declaration was issued, one which included articles the public had never seen or discussed. Yet that declaration would become the main legal document for the transitional period. At the time some people questioned this, how due to a lack of time and information (mainly also about the consequences of a no-vote) the results may have been manipulated, but many were silenced and branded as "undemocratic" because the ballot boxes had 'spoken'. And so the entire theory of democracy, the whole process was reduced to what the 'ballots' said.

This piece is not meant to focus on the Constitutional Declaration and its many flaws, however I think what is written above clarifies the skewed understanding of democracy some people have. If millions went to vote, many would say this overrules any terrible procedural flaws which may even be enough to strip the whole process of any legitimacy.

This leads us to the recent dissolution of parliament. After the announcement of the decision taken by the Supreme Constitutional Court, media immediately jumped to the conclusion that a "coup d'état" had taken place as the only "democratically" elected body was dissolved. Going back to the facts of the case (AR), it was a lawyer who had asked an administrative court to halt the declaration of the results in a certain district by the Supreme Electoral Commission. In that district two party members had battled over a seat belonging to the one-third of seats to be filled by individuals (as opposed to the two-thirds reserved for electoral lists). The plaintiff argued that several articles in the electoral law were unconstitutional for disregarding the principle of equality stipulated in article 7 of the Constitutional Declaration. The administrative court refused to grant the plaintiff what he wanted on January 9th 2012 so he appealed the decision before the Supreme Administrative Court. In February, the case was halted and referred to the Supreme Constitutional Court so as to judge the constitutionality of the articles in question. 

Egypt's Supreme Constitutional Court

In its decision, the Supreme Constitutional Court mentioned article 38 of the Constitutional Declaration, which stipulates the electoral system would be mixed including one third through individual voting and two thirds through the electoral list system (this article had been amended by the Constitutional Declaration of 25 September 2011 in order to constitutionally solidify the mixed electoral system). The Supreme Constitutional Court, arguing on the basis of the principle of equality and non-discrimination, found that this should mean that while two thirds of parliamentary seats were reserved for electoral party lists, the other third should be reserved for independents not belonging to any political party. 

This, indeed, had been the system which was in place before the political parties, most prominently the Freedom & Justice Party and the Nour Party who together garnered the majority of the seats in parliament, had threatened to boycott the elections unless SCAF amended the electoral law. Article 5 of said law which stipulated that only independents were allowed to run for the seats reserved for individual voting, was cancelled. This meant that parties were allowed to field candidates both on the party lists and through the individual voting system thus limiting the chances of independents. 

At the time, the political parties were ready to disregard considerations of fairness and equality under the pretext that article 5 would allow for the NDP to return to parliament. However, former NDP members could still join parties and run on their lists and didn't need to run for the individual seats, thus rendering that argument (at least partly) invalid. Unless specific NDP members were tried and convicted of certain crimes, one shouldn't simply derogate their rights (and that's assuming all independents are NDP members), at least not in a democracy in which the equal exercise of political rights is essential.

Furthermore, the people should be the ones to decide who they want in parliament. However, the slogans which were used during the constitutional referendum in March, which argued that any criticism of the process was an insult to the intelligence of the people and which glorified the ballots to the extreme, were no where to be heard. Apparently, the same people who were able to vote yes on the constitutional referendum, were unable to vote against the NDP in parliamentary elections..

So the Supreme Constitutional Court found this system to be in disregard of the equal political rights of independents, not belonging to any political party, as they were only allowed to run for one third of the seats while candidates belonging to parties were allowed to run for all seats in parliament including the one third which should have been solely reserved for independents. Based on this, the Court found the articles in question to be unconstitutional and consequently also the entire voting system, since if article 5 had still been in place, the entire outcome of elections would have been different: not only the third reserved for independents, but also the other two thirds, since parties would have probably organized their lists differently had they known they couldn't run candidates in the individual system as well.

Finally, I would like to point out that the same parties and political leaders who insisted on a voting system they knew could be found constitutionally flawed and yet went ahead with elections despite that, would later on enact the political disenfranchisement law. That law was declared unconstitutional as well by the Supreme Constitutional Court for being in blatant disregard of the respect for political rights among other things.

The law meant that parliament could simply vote away fundamental individual rights if the required majority is met (and not through a court decision after due process). Additionally, the law signified that it would be acceptable for parliament to limit the choices of the very same people who voted that parliament in by excluding certain candidates from the race.

It is this way of thinking, in which the outcome of the ballots is the only thing that matters even if the process itself was terribly flawed that is the most dangerous thing for a nascent democracy. I will conclude with this saying by Sallust: "Every bad precedent originated as a justifiable measure": if we are willing to trample the most basic individual rights, to disregard the principles of rule of law in order to reach our goals, then we must be careful for we will become like the very monsters we're claiming to fight. 

The Myth of "The Revolutionary Candidate"

Many revolutionaries blamed Hamdeen Sabbahi for taking his chances and nominating himself for the presidency and thus supposedly stealing away AbulFotouh's votes. These people saw that all revolutionaries had to unite behind one 'revolutionary candidate' to face the 'felool'. A similar fate awaited Khaled Ali, although in light of the small amount of votes he got, his running for office didn't affect the final results much as opposed to Hamdeen Sabbahi.

In any case, this post is not written to argue about who is more worthy for the title of "the revolutionary candidate", but rather to argue against the concept itself. Yes, the people stood together and screamed "the people want the downfall of the regime" and "bread, freedom, social justice". Yes, right after the fall of  Mubarak, many decried the terrible polarization that occurred between people who formerly stood hand in hand to revolt against a dictator even unto death. The truth, however - and this shouldn't be considered as  something negative per se - is that the revolutionaries are different individuals with different ideologies.

Lessons we will soon forget

As the final results of the first round of Egypt's presidential elections are revealed, some tendencies in the voting behavior & thinking of Egyptians become clear. As usual, we will not take that into account & will not try to learn from our mistakes in order to rectify what has gone wrong, but here are my two cents:

Most importantly, candidates with a clear program and who've spoken without vagueness about their goals and ideology, seem to be scoring much better. Morsy was the Muslim Brotherhood candidate, a vote for him was a vote for the "Renaissance" project, which didn't really belong to him, but to the Muslim Brotherhood as a whole (some would argue to the Islamists in general). An Islamist who wishes for a greater role for religion in the state and who has said that clearly, Morsy has succeeded, together with the organizational force and weight of the Brotherhood to take the majority of the votes.