Hossam Badrawi Official Website
Citizens ask me wherever I go about the upcoming parliamentary elections. The question is usually when will elections take place? How the next parliament will be and what is its impact on the political situation? Since I believe it is important to have balance between the three powers, executive, legislative and judicial, to guarantee governance integrity and not to have a power dominating another, which requires that it exists first, the absence of an elected parliament is a serious political impasse and an absolute imbalance that allows the domination of the executive power limitlessly, whatever the good intentions are and to whatever the trust in its patriotism is. Therefore, I answer saying that it is important to have a parliament. I am sure that the elected President of the Republic, one year after election, has the same vision and seeks the same so as his ruling term is not stigmatized with decision-making unilateralism and the absence of a fundamental pillar of democracy, whatever his performance is.
At the same time, the serious stalemate set by the Constitution based on the proposal of its esteemed committee, which we agreed on in a popular referendum, is on my mind. It is the Constitution that passed a political ruling for Egypt based on a parliamentary- presidential system in which the president who is directly elected by people and the prime minister who is the representative of the parliamentary majority share the governance. In fact, after reviewing the Constitution, the prime minister and his government responsibility for development may be bigger than that of the president. The president cannot change the prime minister or any of the ministers except with the approval of the parliament majority.
This may appear to be a step forward in which the powers of the president are reduced against the powers of the prime minister, the representative of majority. I think that the psychological state of many esteemed members of the committee that proposed the articles of the Constitution saw that the reduction of the president’s powers after the January, 25 Revolution post-experience, the military council and the year of the MB governance is in its own a victory for democracy. But unfortunately, this ignored the culture and reality of the Egyptian people.
First: According to the culture of Egyptian people, they like the presidential form, which makes the president accountable, whether the Constitution states so or not. Newspaper headlines, the comments of citizens, television programs, and even the members of the committee that established the articles of the Constitution show this clearly. Everyone talks to, appeals to, complains to and demands from the president. This is a culture and reality. Instead of putting the democratic rules of a clearly defined presidential system (a democratic system that has its rules), we have taken another path that depends on the parties that everyone knows and acknowledges they are weak, and everyone knows and acknowledges that there will not be any partisan majority in any parliamentary elections in the near future.
Second: Parliamentary elections may result, and I hope I am wrong, in a parliament that represents individuals, not political ideas. The majority in it may be of those who have more money or a higher voice. Because I know it is difficult to manage majority in the parliament, I fear of the inability to manage a majority of interests without ideology.
What if elections result in non-affinity, fanatic, or narrow-minded majority which does not recognize the rights of minorities?! What if the elections result in a communist orientation that does not start from where the founders of communism ended, but rather starts as if history has stopped, and we will achieve with the ideology of communism what was not achieved by communism founders, and that reality has judged failure, poverty and lack of competitiveness against this system?!
What if elections result in a religious regime, which was actually happened three years ago, once again, that can bring Egypt back to a stage left behind by Egyptians since the beginning of Enlightenment Era which is led by intellectuals of the most tolerant and open religious knowledge, such as Muhammad Abdo and his predecessors and followers of imams of thought and enlightenment such as Taha Hussein, Abbas Al-Aqqad and Ahmed Lutfi el-Sayed, Rafaa Tahtawi, Qasim Amin, Mustafa Kamil, Muhammad Farid and Saad Zaghloul, and others that one article cannot be mention them by name. Egyptians got over it again on 30 June 2013 unprecedented popular revolution.
What if the election system results in a mix of this and that? Is it possible for Egypt to really have a pillar of the renaissance?
This is a very important issue, which was debated on by political elite who said that was the scarecrow that would be used by the state and the ruler to bury the idea of rotation of power and respect for the results of elections. If people, whatever their choices are diminished, decide, within free and fair elections, so it be, even if the state stops moving. Welcome to chaos if it is a democratic will. That democratic will is advocated by many revolutionists and sought by the West under the banner of America. How often I have heard from ambassadors of the United States about the lesson of democracy they have achieved in Iraq!
I would like also to mention that there are democratically elected regimes throughout the world, many of which have been re-elected or renewed by referendums that regularly ignore constitutional restrictions on their authorities after they are elected and deprive their citizens of their political rights. It is a disturbing phenomenon that we encounter in all parts of the globe and on all continents. The MB did the same in Egypt when they took the Chair and majority of the parliament. We have seen similar types in various forms from Peru to Ghana, from Venezuela to the Palestinian territory, and from Korea to Nigeria, within democracy forms that guarantee integrity of free elections, but characterized with violation of laws, do not divide the authorities, and do not protect the basic individual freedoms of expression, gathering, and freedom of belief, proprietorship and privacy. These systems simply and systematically violate human rights, even with a sense of legitimacy within the protection of public order and achieving stability of the state.
The fact that we should know is that the West, in the context of a cumulative historical development, has combined democracy and freedom together, and the two elements of liberal democracy have become united and harmonious in the mindsets of these people in one political inseparable form.
However, in our world, let us acknowledge that democracy, talking about it and battles surrounding it increase but liberties deteriorate. Our call for democracy is incomplete, but it can be catastrophic if its fabric is not merged into flourishing of freedoms, division and balance among powers and a firm application of law. Illiberal democracy brought Adolf Hitler to power. In my point of view, if free and fair elections were held in Iraq during the days of Saddam Hussein, it would have resulted in bringing him to power. If Gamal Abdel Nasser had held free and fair elections, he would have certainly been chosen by the Egyptian people. None of those leaders respected freedoms and the rights of citizens under the pretense of protecting the society. Each of them ended up with a national disaster. Let us have a look at history. Free and fair elections resulted in dictatorial regimes in Central Asia, and, in many places, it resulted in exacerbating ethnic conflicts and tensions and the separation of sectors of countries. For example, Yugoslavia and Indonesia have been more consistent with tolerance and secularism when they were under the rule of powerful men, such as Tito and Suharto, more than when they conducted free and fair elections. Elections in many democratic countries did not lead to much improvement in conditions, but led to regimes more regressive than when they were under dictatorship.
However, does this stop us from or prevent us from participating in the elections and from calling for integrity? Does the fear of turning into false democracy or turning the beautiful dream into a nightmare, chaos, violence and new forms of tyranny, prevent us from elections?! Or should it push us to a positive initiative towards transformation not only into a formal democracy that may lead to disasters, but also to a liberal democracy through which the integrity of elections is compatible with freedoms?
Why do I have this concern in my mind when I find such a big number of developing countries experiencing severe difficulties to create stable societies? How can we in Egypt make sure of our success in the transition I see we are qualified for it?
Undoubtedly, the free and impartial elections are the essence of democracy and a necessary and inevitable condition. It might result in inefficient and shortsighted governments that are dominated by special interests, whether ideological or economical. They might be governments that are not able to adopt policies that promote society. However, all of this shall make them inefficient governments, but shall not prevent them from being democratic.
It remains that in this case which is possible in Egypt and in other countries that move to democratic systems, the most important question arises: Where is the protective deterrent that guarantees reformation and stability?
In the West, the deeply rooted traditions have been established in the protection of an individual’s autonomy and dignity from coercion whatever its source is, whether from the side of state, church or even the majority of society, within a framework that protects the rights of minorities and freedoms, because it is based on a union between democracy and freedom. In our country, such axioms remain unstable in the minds of rulers and individuals as well, within an educational and cultural systems that neither develop this orientation nor makes it stable in the conscience of the community.
What do we do to make our call for democracy a call for freedom and protection of individual rights as well? How do we direct the effects of free and impartial elections if they resulted in gross chaos in which interests conflict? This is what we see now in Egypt at different levels less than the parliament, in each council, starting from councils of buildings, neighborhoods, locals, syndicates, university departments, etc. It is a frequent pattern in Egypt that gives a clear and explicit indication of the highest level in the country which is the total of what happens at lower levels. Everyone is in conflict, a sense of rights that are flouted, intolerance, controversy and interest groups, and a circle of inability to make decisions.
Freedom is the guarantee, not represented by chaos but a degree of order. We need guidelines and restrictions. The true security of freedom depends on the strength of some protective walls that protect it. This is what came with modern liberal democracy over accumulation of years, which we cannot wait for it in our country.
We must restore the balance between democracy and freedom. Democratic societies need new equipment and guidelines to face the problems and conditions of the present era. To achieve this, it begins with three scenarios:
First: Without hesitation, it is justice and strict application of law, without selectivity. We must think of the law as the wise restrictions that make citizens free. Any authority, whatever the degree of integrity of those holding it, must not enjoy continuity to govern under any circumstances for more than a specified term. In addition, the Constitution must protect the society from any governing system that wants to modify it in favor of its continuity or violation of the rights of citizens or excluding them from exercising their rights.
The chaos that we see around us is an inevitable result of the failure to enforce the law firmly, which was sought by darkness forces to destroy the police force in Egypt, which is assigned to apply the law as it is the hand of justice. Demolition of confidence in the police force was and is still the target from non-application of law so that it is open to the money authority, hooliganism and claiming heroism from those who criminalize against the society.
Second: Democracy and freedom as a fundamental contiguity in not to move into chaos must be governed by a new revolution within the institution of justice to ensure the right and eliminate corruption within it, not from a political or ideological point of view but rather from a neutral point of view to protect Egypt from the next move.
I cannot conclude this part of my article on democracy and freedom without focusing on the third axis: education. Education remains the main and fundamental axis of building the man who can see the future from this perspective. I will discuss this matter and will go on fighting for it, whatever the obstacles and challenges are.
Now, the question that arises: If we take into account the firm application of the law, correcting the course and efficiency of the institution of justice and police force, and considering education the opportunity for salvation, if we use these above three principles, I see it is a must that citizens inform the president, who had a popular majority in fair elections, with the reality and hopes. The reality is what I outlined in previous sentences, and the hopes are the vision on which the Ministry of Planning works with a respected group of experts in every field. There is a vision, objectives and possible and available means of measurement for Egypt 2050 through 2030, which I hope the president will adopt it if it expresses his dreams with us. If the president presents this document to people and asks that the Constitution is amended to suit the culture of society, and he and his team become responsible in front of people for a specific period of time that we will not make it more than two presidential terms at maximum, I think the hope will become possible.
The other way is for the parliament to be elected, and the parliament itself requests an amendment to the Constitution that allows for sustainable development of the country without restricting the president’s powers, and the absence of a prime minister that represents unavailable partisan majority, which I see as unlikely.
The third way is for the president to announce formation of a political party. I expect out of my knowledge of the political culture of the society that it will have a parliamentary majority and hence the Constitution can be amended to suit reality and hopes.
