This constitution is significantly more secular than the one of 2012. It guarantees absolute freedom of faith and belief. It removes a provision that would have allowed the al-Azhar Seminary to pronounce on the parts of Egyptian law directly drawn from the Muslim legal code or shariah. It forbids the formation of political parties based on religion (i.e. it bans the Freedom and Justice Party of the Muslim Brotherhood from contesting elections, since religion is in its platform). It should be noted that Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union in Germany would be illegal according to this constitution. And, I suspect, many Evangelical politicians in the Republican Party in the US would be expelled from Congress. What I can’t understand is that the Salafi Nour Party says it is all right with this constitution, even though as far as I can tell it might well require the dissolution of that party.

On the other hand, the constitution contains some key contradictions. It forbids insulting prophets (i.e. Moses, Jesus, Muhammad), and it says that Islamic law is the principal source of legislation. (Fundamentalists wanted to remove the qualifier “principal” but failed). It says Coptic Christians and Muslims will each be governed in personal status matters by the laws of their religion (regarding marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc.) It would be better to have a uniform civil code. So it contains some religious principles. In fact, it leaves many issues to be governed by subsequent statute as passed by the parliament (which will be a single chamber— the Committee of 50 is abolishing the largely ceremonial upper house, which had become a tool of rule for the Muslim Brotherhood president, Muhammad Morsi).

The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, the top 23 officers, is given the right to approve the choice of Minister of Defense for the next two presidential terms, i.e. for 8 years beginning next summer. This step is intended to prevent a repeat of the Morsi period, when the Muslim Brotherhood appointed Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi because they thought he was pious. In the end, whatever his religious beliefs, he overthrew the Brotherhood government that was elected in June, 2012.

forbids torture and makes it a crime with no statute of limitations. If this provision is ever actually implemented, it will be a major gain of the youth activists such as Wael Abbas who campaigned against police torture from the middle of the last decade. The government of Muhammad Morsi was criticized for not having in fact stopped police torture.

The old socialist provision of the 1971 constitution that set aside half of seats in parliament for peasants and workers was abolished. Egyptian socialists were angered and worried that the next parliament would be peopled by millionaires (welcome to our world). But the fact is that many deputies who ran as independents for those worker seats were very well off. In the Mubarak period they usually joined the National Democratic Party as soon as parliament convened, so they were hardly independents in fact. The right to form unions will be regulated by statute, which is not a good sign.

The constitution is a very mixed bag, with some good provisions and some horrible ones. It says people can hold private meetings without seeking permission, which is a major step away from the old Egyptian police state. But that provision seems to contradict the just-passed law forbidding demonstrations unless they are licensed by the police.

It is also good on the treatment of children and forbidding human trafficking. The Muslim Brotherhood government had opposed such a prohibition on the grounds that it might end up being used to forbid early marriage of girls (according to Hiba Morayef of Human Rights Watch via Twitter).

It says that international treaties signed by the Egyptian government become domestic law. It also says that citizens can sue the government and officials if they try to deprive the citizens of their guaranteed rights. Since the Egyptian state has insincerely signed a lot of international treaties and instruments on human rights, the Committee of 50 is setting up Egyptian lawyers to get very busy and very rich.

Mada Misr discusses the vote on many of the controversial articles. Five committee members objected to “Article 53, which equalizes citizens before the law, regardless of their religion, doctrine, gender, race, color, language, handicap, social status, political or geographic affiliation.” But it passed.

Al-Ahram says

”
Article 64: Freedom of belief is absolute. Thirty-six voted for, three abstained from voting, eight voted against.
Article 65: Freedom of thought and opinion is guaranteed and every human being is entitled to express his/her views verbally or in writing, by photography, or any other form of expression. Forty-three voted for, five voted against.
Article 70: Freedom of journalism, printing and publishing in all forms is guaranteed; every Egyptian has the right to own and issue newspapers and to establish audio and visual media. Newspapers are to be issued after notifying the authorities, in accordance with the law. The law regulates procedures for establishing and owning media entities.
Article 71: Censorship, confiscation, suspension, or closure of Egyptian media is prohibited. During times of war or public mobilisation, exceptional censorship is possible.”

Article 70 sounds good but Hiba Morayef of Human Rights Watch pointed out on Twitter, it retains the 2012 language about newspapers being freely established on notification, but says that television will be regulated by statute.

In the end, this is a constitution crafted by and for the relatively secular-minded Egyptian upper classes. (As if working people can each found a newspaper!) It is not anti-religious but it tries to forbid political Islam or the importing of religion into politics. It has many provisions benefiting the upper classes but does little for the workers or the poor. It is ironic that the provisions banning censorship and establishing freedom of speech were passed on a day when dissident Ahmad Maher was arrested for thought crimes (his criticism of the anti-protest law). Indeed, how contradictory a document it is should be obvious from the ironic title of this posting.

A referendum on the constitution will be held in January.

Youth leaders of the 2011 revolution are now also being targeted for calling for demonstrations against the law, including Ahmad Maher of April 6 and blogger Alaa Abdel Fattah. Maher and other members of the left of center April 6 youth organization had also been prosecuted for protesting by the deposed government of Muhammad Morsi.

Update: On Thursday evening police broke into Alaa Abdel Fattah’s apartment and beat his wife Manal and dragged him off:

Alaa’s situation is being continually updated here

On Wednesday, an Egyptian court sentenced 11 adult women to 14 years in prison for protesting, and the teenaged girls arrested with them (one 15) were ordered to juvenile prison until they turn 21. They are members of the banned Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt’s military-backed government, which deposed Muslim Brotherhood President Muhammad Morsi on July 3, has just passed a Draconian anti-protest law. Ironically, it has much in common with a law proposed by the deposed government of Morsi, which also prosecuted protesters.

Muslim Brotherhood members widely defied the law to protest against it, despite the law’s resemblance to the one they had wanted to impose on the country last year this time. Likewise, liberals, leftists and youth activists have come out to defy the law. It establishes “protest zones” (a la George W. Bush), requires 3 days advance notice of intent to protest, police permission, allows police to use birdshot on protesters, forbids sit-ins, and imposes heavy fines and harsh prison terms on demonstrators who defy the military state. Coming in the wake of the 2011 revolution against dictator Hosni Mubarak, the law is a further attempt by what is left of the old Egyptian elite to put the genie back in the bottle and return to authoritarian governance.

BBC reports:

—–

Here is liberal blogger Alaa Abdel Fattah’s statement on the arrest warrant issued for him, as translated by novelist Ahdaf Sueif:

Ahdaf Soueif
Alaa Abd El Fattah’s today’s statement in English (my version)

Statement of my intention to hand myself in to the Prosecutor’s Office on Saturday mid-day:

A Charge I don’t Deny and an Honour I don’t Claim

For the second time the Office of the Public Prosecutor sends out an arrest warrant through the media – instead of my address – well-known known to them because of their history of fabricating charges against me in the eras of Mubarak, Tantawi and Morsi.

For the second time the office of the Public Prosecutor lets itself be a tool of government propaganda, this time on the orders of the murderer, (Minister of Interior) Muhammad Ibrahim, instead of the Morshid (of the Muslim Brotehrhood). Their reason: that I incited people to demand that trials should be fair and should be the responsibility of an independent civil judiciary. As though it’s bad for the Prosecutor’s Office to respect itself and be respected by the public, it must prove its subservience to any authority that passes through this country –no difference here between a Prosecutor illegitimately appointed at the instructions of the Morshid, and Prosecutor correctly appointed – but at the instructions of the Military.

The charge – it appears – is that I participated in inviting people to protest yesterday, in front of the Shura Council building, against placing – for the second time – an article in the constitution legitimizing the court-martial of civilians.

The strange thing is that both the Prosecutor and the Ministry of the Interior knew that I was present for 8 hours at First Police Station New Cairo in solidarity with the people arrested yesterday on the same charges. But neither the Prosecutor nor the MOI ordered my arrest at the time or demanded that I be questioned. This probably means that they intend to put on a show where I play the criminal-in-hiding.

So, despite the following facts:
That I do not recognize the anti-protest law that the people have brought down as promptly as they brought down the monument to the military’s massacres –

That the legitimacy of the current regime collapsed with the first drop of blood shed in front of the Republican Guard Club –

That any possibility of saving this legitimacy vanished when the ruling four (Sisi, Beblawi, Ibrahim and Mansour) committed war crimes during the break-up of the Rab’a sit-in –

That the Public Prosecutor’s Office displayed crass subservience when it provided legal cover for the widest campaign of indiscriminate administrative detention in our modern history, locking up young women, injured people, old people and children, and holding in evidence against them balloons and Tshirts –

That the clear corruption in the judiciary is to be seen in the overharsh sentences against students whose crime was their anger at the murder of their comrades, set against light sentences and acquittals for the uniformed murderers of those same young people-

Despite all this, I have decided to do what I’ve always done and hand myself in to the Public Prosecutor.

I do not deny the charge – even though I cannot claim the honour of bringing the people into the street to challenge the attempts to legitimize the return of the Mubarak state.

And so that I don’t allow their rabid dogs any excuse at all, I have officially informed the Prosecutor’s Office by telegram (N0 96/381 dated today), and by letter (delivered by hand to the Public Prosecutor, registered number 17138 for 2013), as I have informed the Attorney General for Central Cairo (telegram no 96/382) of my intention to hand myself in on Saturday November 30 at 12 mid-day to the Prosecution at their Qasr el-Nil office.

“The protest’s people’s voices heard – needs no permit from the guard!”

Alaa Abd El Fattah
Cairo 27 November 2013

But despite the fear-mongering and hysteria of Israeli politicians [see below], the general reaction in the region has been much more positive than the Likud government would have us believe. Moreover, far from there being an Israel-Arab consensus against the agreement, much of the Arab world welcomed the Iran deal and saw it as a first step toward getting nuclear weapons out of the Middle East altogether. That is, they are hoping that once Iran’s nuclear enrichment program is restructured as permanently peaceful, the United Nations Security Council will turn up pressure on Israel to give up its nuclear weapons.

Turkey, a NATO ally of the US that has some disputes with Iran (notably over Syria) nevertheless warmly greeted the announcement. Turkey has a population of 76 million, as does Iran, i.e., both are just a little less populous than Germany.

Turkish President Abdullah Gul said on Twitter on Sunday,

“I welcome today’s agreement on Iran’s nuclear program. I have been advocating a solution through diplomacy and we hosted many diplomatic efforts in Turkey to this end . . . This is a major step forward. I hope it’ll be sealed with a final agreement soon. I congratulate all parties for their constructive engagement.”

Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) has a doctrine of seeking good relations with neighbors in order to expand trade. After AK came to power in 2002, Turkey’s foreign trade expanded a great deal ( it was $239 billion in 2012) and trade with the Middle East expanded from almost nothing under the nationalist, secularist generals to 22%. (Turkey’s GDP is $788 billion in nominal terms, more than that of the Netherlands and just behind Indonesia, making it the 17th largest economy in the world, lagging behind not only Indonesia but Mexico and South Korea).

The new commerce of the past decade is worth billions to Ankara and comes as cream on top of expanded trade with Europe and Asia. By 2011, Turkey’s trade with Iran had gone from almost nothing to $16 bn. Some 2500 Iranian companies have invested in Turkey. But in 2013 the value of the trade has fallen from the previous year, largely because of international sanctions that make it difficult for Iran to develop its oil and gas production and difficult for Turkish banks to interface with Iranian ones. Turkish officials view the level of trade with Iran as far below what could be achieved, and as currently almost insignificant. They would like to expand the trade to $100 billion, and had aimed for $30 billion by 2015.

International sanctions were therefore extremely inconvenient for Turkey’s policy of trade expansion in the region. Moreover, Turkey depends on inexpensive natural gas from Iran for some of its own electricity production. Compared to the Turkish-Iranian tiff over Syria, the possible cooperation in energy and trade expansion is much more important to Ankara. Likewise, the AKP supports the Palestinians under Israeli occupation, and has that in common with Iran. Turkey is champing at the bit to trade unhindered with Iran and to invest in it, as well as to welcome further Iranian investment in Turkey. The Kerry-Zarif deal could not be more welcome in Ankara.

Iraq, with a population of over 30 million and a GDP of $212 bn., also enthusiastically greeted the news. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said,

“Reaching an agreement between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the six nations over Iran’s nuclear program is a major step in the security and stability of the region… We hope that the process of confidence-building and dialogue will continue in the interest of both sides to prevent nuclear proliferation and to recognize the right of Iran’s peaceful nuclear program.”

Iran and Iraq were probably at one point in a nuclear arms race with one another (and with Israel, which started it), so it is remarkable that Baghdad defends Iran’s right to enrich uranium for peaceful energy purposes. Al-Maliki has poor relations with the Sunni Gulf oil monarchies and so is isolated. He depends on Iran for trade and electricity and for support in his war of attrition with Sunni extremists who keep blowing up his capital.

Iraq hasn’t paid any attention to the international sanctions on Iran because it needs Iran too much, and indeed it may have been extending aid to Iran to help it in its economic difficulties. The Maliki government has been caught between its American ally and its Iranian one, and been subject to pressure from each side. Kurdish Member of Parliament Mahmoud Osman made this point, saying that if relations between Washington and Tehran improved, it would reduce pressures on Iraq. Osman said that Iraq would benefit economically, because it would not have to extend aid to Iran to help it get through the harsh sanctions. This is the first time I’ve seen the allegation that Iraq is helping Iran with aid (it used to be the other way around). I would be very surprised if Iraq is not helping Iran smuggle petroleum out in contravention of American sanctions.

Lebanon’s Foreign Minister, Adnan Mansour, welcomed the agreement as “positive.” In particular, he tied it to Iran’s agreement never to produce a bomb, and saw it as a step toward the de-nuclearization of the Middle East. That is, Lebanon is hoping that after the Iran nuclear problem is dealt with, the world community will next turn to the Israeli nuclear problem, which Mansour says threatens his country.

Egypt, a country of 84 million with a GDP of $254 bn, took much the same tack as Lebanon. A spokesman for interim Foreign Minister Nabil Fahmy “welcomed” the agreement and also saw it as a move toward the de-nuclearization of the Middle East.

The spokesman for the Jordanian government, Muhammad al-Mumini , said that the agreement was “a step in the right direction.” He went on to express his hope that the international community would go on to take equal interest in resolving the other security problems in the region. (He meant the Syrian civil war, which is putting an enormous burden on Jordan, and the problem of Palestinian statelessness, which concerns the 60% of Jordan’s population that consists of families ethnically cleansed by the Israelis from their original homes). Jordan’s King Abdullah II had long warned that a war with Iran would be a catastrophe for the whole Middle East, but a few years ago in the Bush era he was not always on the same page with his American and Saudi allies.

The Gulf Cooperation Council of oil monarchies was not as negative as the US media keeps reporting. The cabinet of the United Arab Emirates praised the agreement and said it hoped it would lead to regional stability and an end to nuclear proliferation. Likewise, Qatar and Bahrain welcomed the development, and like Lebanon and Egypt said they hoped it would lead to a nuclear free zone in the Middle East. We know Oman approves because it hosted the preparatory meetings between the US and Iran. Kuwait (a country of 3.2 million with a GDP of $173 bn) seems to dislike the agreement, since it appears to be silent on it.

As for Saudi Arabia, which some pundits allege is so upset by the negotiations that it is ready to throw in with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, well, not so much. The Saudi Minister of Culture, Dr. Abdul Aziz bin Muhyi’d-Din Khoja, said that the preparatory agreement could lead to a resolution of the Iran nuclear problem, assuming that that country acts in good faith. He was also glad that the agreement recognized the right of countries in the region to benefit from nuclear power. (Saudi Arabia wants nuclear reactors, something Iran already has at Bushehr, but Israel had bombed Iraq when it built a light water nuclear reactor, so Riyadh seems to see the UNSC undertakings as removing any Israeli veto against peaceful reactors in the region). Like Egypt and Lebanon, Saudi Arabia also saw the understanding as a first step toward also removing Israeli nukes from the Middle East.

Algeria, a country with a population of 38 million and a GDP of $209 bn, warmly welcomed the deal.

There was no question that Syria would be happy about the breakthrough, and Damascus said it showed that the region’s problems can be resolved through negotiation.

So actually, folks, the Likud government of Netanyahu is completely isolated in its loud rejection of these negotiations. Virtually everyone else in the Middle East is positive, and most of the countries that count (by size and power) are absolutely enthusiastic. The degree of Israeli isolation is matched only by the extremeness of its rhetoric. One Israeli cabinet member who has read too much Tom Clancy warned of “suitcase bombs” provided by Iran to terrorist for use in Western cities. Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapon and there aren’t any such things as suitcase bombs and no country has ever given away a nuclear weapon to anyone, let alone to a scruffy terrorist. And, again, Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapon or any particular prospect of one. Israel in contrast has several hundred warheads and the means to deliver them, bombs that it developed sneakily and under false pretenses. And Israel routinely uses its nuclear stockpile to threaten or blackmail other countries (as with Ariel Sharon’s threats directed at Saddam Hussein’s Iraq).