When a new constitution is framed for an existing State there are factual premises which cannot or should not be ignored. Otherwise, as I have mentioned in a previous article “Drafting a Stillborn, Contentious Constitution” in the Coptic Solidarity Newsletter, we would be heading to a chaotic state capable of being controlled only by some form of martial law under yet another military dictatorship.
The viability and effectiveness of a constitution is gauged by its attention to the welfare of the nation as a whole without partiality based on any attribute, which may differentiate between different factions of the one people.
The first amendment I am proposing is to contravene the fallacious preamble where Egypt is effectively labeled ‘an Islamic State.’ If this were to stand, then the corollary which follows would be that every Egyptian is a Muslim which is not the case and never will be. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as an Islamic State, has none other than Muslims in its citizenship. Egyptians are defined not by their religious affiliation but by being born to an Egyptian parent, that is, an Egyptian has Egyptian blood by heritage. The ambiguity between defining Egypt as an Islamic State and Egyptians are thus through heritage, is stark and untenable. This ambiguity will be the source of contention in many affairs.
The idea that a Copt cannot be a president of Egypt or head the military amongst other repressions both written and unwritten are a case in point. It bears repeating that the Copts are second-class citizens in their own land and are doomed to continue being so. The US presidency is reserved to those born and not naturalized Americans. It has nothing to do with religious affiliation. The Salafists in the ‘Committee of Fifty’ are fighting tooth and nail to include clauses in the new constitution which binds the State to totalitarianism through the imposition of Shari’a.
This fractious imposition, if applied, would disrupt the nation and invite outsiders to influence it unduly in negative ways. It is very silly to ignore those Egyptians who do not belong to one of the three so-called Abramic or heavenly religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Are those Egyptians to live in limbo in their own homeland? Time and again, all over the world, to define a nation based on the religion of the majority is to invite division and repression.
The total misunderstanding of the Islamists, Salafists, and their sympathizers in the ‘Committee of Fifty’ of the word ‘civilian’ should automatically disqualify them from participating in framing an instrument as important as the constitution of the land. To them, using this word is ‘Westernizing’ Egypt. Having repeatedly labeled the USA ‘the great Satan’ and the rest of the West close cronies/disciples, explains the vehemence of their stance. Why are their opinions given so much notice and weight? Either many of the other members of the committee are undeclared sympathizers, or their influence reaches beyond the ‘Committee of Fifty’ to include higher authorities which are influencing the deliberations of the committee.
If my supposition is valid then once more I am for the representatives of the Churches of Egypt and others who see the danger should walk out and not give this ‘committee’ the semblance of rectitude and impartiality.
I have repeatedly maintained that writing of this constitution is the most important event in the rebuilding of Egypt. I would much rather the ‘committee’ frame as fair and equitable a constitution then my proposing a valid amendment a priori.
________________________
Saba E. Demian, M.D.
