Hossam Badrawi Official Website
The President’s assignment to the government
The young follower said: We have read, Dr. Hossam, about the president’s assignment to the government to implement the transformation of the country into a modern civil state, and this has pleased us and raised hope in it, so what do you think, and what is the assignment?
His colleague, a graduate of political science, said: This will be considered a continuation of what we have proposed regarding the application of the articles of the constitution in the previous discussion, as it came in the introduction to the constitution and in its following articles:
“We are now writing a constitution to complete the construction of a modern democratic state with a civil government.”.. “The political system is based on political and partisan pluralism, the peaceful transfer of power, the separation and balance between powers, responsibility and authority, and respect for human rights and freedoms as set out in the constitution. ».
This is the preamble to the constitution and its fifth article, which the Egyptian people approved by an overwhelming majority in 2014, and neither this introduction nor the fifth article were followed by amendments in 2019 as happened to others. The constitution is our reference in managing and preserving Egypt.
The educated young woman said: What is the civil state intended by the president, and by the constitution, the matter may be mixed in the interpretation, because the second articles of the constitution say: “Islam is the religion of the state, the Arabic language is its official language, and the principles of Islamic Sharia are the main source of legislation,” which some may interpret as a trend. Towards a religious state?!
And her colleague said: Why do we want a civil state in the first place, and why do we call it this name, which makes it in contrast to the religious state or the military state, which raises sensitivities without meaning?
Another said: O people, in contrast to the second article, there is the fourth article which says: (Article 4
Sovereignty is for the people alone, who exercises it and protects it, and it is the source of authority, and it preserves its national unity, which is based on the principles of equality, justice and equal opportunities for all citizens, in the manner set out in the Constitution.
I thought for a while, and found that it was necessary for me to clarify the history of these constitutional articles and their meanings in a framework that would teach young people that these discussions had taken place before, and that they had been interpreted in a manner that preserved our country’s orientation towards modernity and civic.
I told them: The second article of the constitution entered into it in 1971, and it did not exist before in the first rule of Sadat, and it said: “The principles of Islamic Sharia are a major source of legislation.” Then it was amended in 1980 by putting “the” into the word “source” to become “the source.” Main Legislation” as part of a deal between Sadat and the religious Salafist movement in exchange for amending the article that allows the president to be re-elected any number of times. However, the Supreme Constitutional Court clarified that the principles of Islamic Sharia are “the legal rulings that are final in their evidence and significance.” It is these provisions alone that may not be subject to ijtihad. Diligence is adhered to.
As for the modern civil state, it protects all members of society regardless of their national, religious or intellectual affiliations. There are several principles that should be present in the civil state, and if one of them is missing, the conditions of that state will not be fulfilled, the most important of which is that the state is based on peace, tolerance, acceptance of others and equality in rights and duties, so that it guarantees the rights of all citizens, not as a gift from the ruler but as a right of his duty to preserve on him.
One of the most important principles of a civil state is that no individual is subject to a violation of his rights by another individual or party. There is always a supreme authority that is the authority of the state, through law-enforced mechanisms, which individuals resort to when their rights are violated or threatened to be violated. It is the state that applies the law and prevents the parties from applying forms of punishment themselves.
The civil state is characterized by equal opportunities between citizens and institutions on declared bases, as well as faith and the application of the principle of citizenship, which means that the individual is not known by his profession, religion, territory, money or authority, but is known by a social legal definition as a citizen, that is, he is a member of society with rights and duties. It is equal to all citizens.
One of the most important principles of the civil state is that it is not established by mixing religion with politics. Nor does it hostile or reject religion. Rather, religion remains in the civil state a factor in building morals and creating the energy for work, achievement, and progress. What the civil state rejects is the use of religion to achieve political goals. narrow worldly interests.
The civil state is also characterized by the principle of respect for the law and democracy, which in essence prevents the state from being forcibly taken by an individual, an elite, a family, or an ideological tendency, and power is transferred in it within a framework of individual freedom of expression, candidacy and election, and all its institutions are placed within the scope of accountability, and a balance The executive, supervisory and judicial authorities in it, so no authority penetrates over another.
As for why we want civil government with the definition I mentioned? This is because “the alternation of power, the oversight of state institutions, and the balance between powers” is the protector of individuals and their rights mentioned in the constitution. The possibility of devolving power puts every ruler before the moment when he leaves the government and the account of the masses.
Yes, there are dictatorial regimes that have achieved developmental breakthroughs, but they are the exception, and the utopia of a just dictator who, despite his long rule, does not take him in the intoxication of power and thinks that he is above the law is unstable.
Their colleague said: So any system of government that achieves this is a good system of government.
I said yes.
Another said: What is the opposite of the modern civil state?
I said: The opposite of civil rule is religious rule that uses religion and belief to achieve political powers, and does not recognize citizenship except for those who adhere to their religion. It is a dictatorship armed with religion.
The other opposite is the dictatorship, which is armed with a humanistic ideology
The young follower said: We have read, Dr. Hossam, about the president’s assignment to the government to implement the transformation of the country into a modern civil state, and this has pleased us and raised hope in it, so what do you think, and what is the assignment?
His colleague, a graduate of political science, said: This will be considered a continuation of what we have proposed regarding the application of the articles of the constitution in the previous discussion, as it came in the introduction to the constitution and in its following articles:
“We are now writing a constitution to complete the construction of a modern democratic state with a civil government.”.. “The political system is based on political and partisan pluralism, the peaceful transfer of power, the separation and balance between powers, responsibility and authority, and respect for human rights and freedoms as set out in the constitution. ».
This is the preamble to the constitution and its fifth article, which the Egyptian people approved by an overwhelming majority in 2014, and neither this introduction nor the fifth article were followed by amendments in 2019 as happened to others. The constitution is our reference in managing and preserving Egypt.
The educated young woman said: What is the civil state intended by the president, and by the constitution, the matter may be mixed in the interpretation, because the second articles of the constitution say: “Islam is the religion of the state, the Arabic language is its official language, and the principles of Islamic Sharia are the main source of legislation,” which some may interpret as a trend. Towards a religious state?!
And her colleague said: Why do we want a civil state in the first place, and why do we call it this name, which makes it in contrast to the religious state or the military state, which raises sensitivities without meaning?
Another said: O people, in contrast to the second article, there is the fourth article which says: (Article 4
Sovereignty is for the people alone, who exercises it and protects it, and it is the source of authority, and it preserves its national unity, which is based on the principles of equality, justice and equal opportunities for all citizens, in the manner set out in the Constitution.
I thought for a while, and found that it was necessary for me to clarify the history of these constitutional articles and their meanings in a framework that would teach young people that these discussions had taken place before, and that they had been interpreted in a manner that preserved our country’s orientation towards modernity and civic.
I told them: The second article of the constitution entered into it in 1971, and it did not exist before in the first rule of Sadat, and it said: “The principles of Islamic Sharia are a major source of legislation.” Then it was amended in 1980 by putting “the” into the word “source” to become “the source.” Main Legislation” as part of a deal between Sadat and the religious Salafist movement in exchange for amending the article that allows the president to be re-elected any number of times. However, the Supreme Constitutional Court clarified that the principles of Islamic Sharia are “the legal rulings that are final in their evidence and significance.” It is these provisions alone that may not be subject to ijtihad. Diligence is adhered to.
As for the modern civil state, it protects all members of society regardless of their national, religious or intellectual affiliations. There are several principles that should be present in the civil state, and if one of them is missing, the conditions of that state will not be fulfilled, the most important of which is that the state is based on peace, tolerance, acceptance of others and equality in rights and duties, so that it guarantees the rights of all citizens, not as a gift from the ruler but as a right of his duty to preserve on him.
One of the most important principles of a civil state is that no individual is subject to a violation of his rights by another individual or party. There is always a supreme authority that is the authority of the state, through law-enforced mechanisms, which individuals resort to when their rights are violated or threatened to be violated. It is the state that applies the law and prevents the parties from applying forms of punishment themselves.
The civil state is characterized by equal opportunities between citizens and institutions on declared bases, as well as faith and the application of the principle of citizenship, which means that the individual is not known by his profession, religion, territory, money or authority, but is known by a social legal definition as a citizen, that is, he is a member of society with rights and duties. It is equal to all citizens.
One of the most important principles of the civil state is that it is not established by mixing religion with politics. Nor does it hostile or reject religion. Rather, religion remains in the civil state a factor in building morals and creating the energy for work, achievement, and progress. What the civil state rejects is the use of religion to achieve political goals. narrow worldly interests.
The civil state is also characterized by the principle of respect for the law and democracy, which in essence prevents the state from being forcibly taken by an individual, an elite, a family, or an ideological tendency, and power is transferred in it within a framework of individual freedom of expression, candidacy and election, and all its institutions are placed within the scope of accountability, and a balance The executive, supervisory and judicial authorities in it, so no authority penetrates over another.
As for why we want civil government with the definition I mentioned? This is because “the alternation of power, the oversight of state institutions, and the balance between powers” is the protector of individuals and their rights mentioned in the constitution. The possibility of devolving power puts every ruler before the moment when he leaves the government and the account of the masses.
Yes, there are dictatorial regimes that have achieved developmental breakthroughs, but they are the exception, and the utopia of a just dictator who, despite his long rule, does not take him in the intoxication of power and thinks that he is above the law is unstable.
Their colleague said: So any system of government that achieves this is a good system of government.
I said yes.
Another said: What is the opposite of the modern civil state?
I said: The opposite of civil rule is religious rule that uses religion and belief to achieve political powers, and does not recognize citizenship except for those who adhere to their religion. It is a dictatorship armed with religion.
The other opposite is the dictatorship, which is armed with a humanistic ideology
Overwhelmed by the people, as was the communist regime, which failed and collapsed and fell.
And the third opposite is any dictatorial regime that armed with intimidation of the people to impose the will of a group of them to rule.
The three have one thing in common, which is that power is not transferred peacefully in this country except through revolutions, coups, demolition and assassinations.
The educated young woman said: Do you avoid talking about the military state, Doctor?
I said: No, my daughter, the definition of military rule is not of mine, for it is the rule in which the military take over all powers and suspend civil laws or subject them to their control. It is an exceptional system that countries resort to in case of emergency crises and disruption of security, in which a state of emergency is decided permanently until the danger is removed from the country and the executive authority is granted broad powers until security and stability return to the country.
But there is another definition of military rule, which is enveloped in civilian clothing. It is the ruling that directly or indirectly prevents civilians from reaching power, and aborts partisan and political work so that the civil forces have no value in the elections, and it interferes with civilian rule by controlling civil institutions, so the affairs of the country do not proceed or a decision is taken without their consent, and the balance is disturbed between the authorities, and the marginalization of all state institutions. The danger is that over time, the argument for staying in power and stopping the transfer of power becomes linked to the absence or inefficiency of an alternative, which is the natural result of the marginalization of civil state institutions.
Society often loses its confidence in civil institutions, and a feeling and certainty is generated that civil society is lax without a system and is not fit to run the country.
All of this may happen in a country, or some of it, and events may lead to it.. But history says that all dictatorial regimes, no matter how accomplished in moments, are like building a sand castle on the beach, often ending in violations of freedoms, coups, wars or revolutions. Or assassinations that destroy what has been accomplished, and return the country to ground zero again.
The first young man said: What about Egypt?
I said: The only way to sustain the success of any system of government is clarity of vision, allowing the accumulation of experiences, the rotation of power, and respect for freedoms within the framework of the law.
And the third opposite is any dictatorial regime that armed with intimidation of the people to impose the will of a group of them to rule.
The three have one thing in common, which is that power is not transferred peacefully in this country except through revolutions, coups, demolition and assassinations.
The educated young woman said: Do you avoid talking about the military state, Doctor?
I said: No, my daughter, the definition of military rule is not of mine, for it is the rule in which the military take over all powers and suspend civil laws or subject them to their control. It is an exceptional system that countries resort to in case of emergency crises and disruption of security, in which a state of emergency is decided permanently until the danger is removed from the country and the executive authority is granted broad powers until security and stability return to the country.
But there is another definition of military rule, which is enveloped in civilian clothing. It is the ruling that directly or indirectly prevents civilians from reaching power, and aborts partisan and political work so that the civil forces have no value in the elections, and it interferes with civilian rule by controlling civil institutions, so the affairs of the country do not proceed or a decision is taken without their consent, and the balance is disturbed between the authorities, and the marginalization of all state institutions. The danger is that over time, the argument for staying in power and stopping the transfer of power becomes linked to the absence or inefficiency of an alternative, which is the natural result of the marginalization of civil state institutions.
Society often loses its confidence in civil institutions, and a feeling and certainty is generated that civil society is lax without a system and is not fit to run the country.
All of this may happen in a country, or some of it, and events may lead to it.. But history says that all dictatorial regimes, no matter how accomplished in moments, are like building a sand castle on the beach, often ending in violations of freedoms, coups, wars or revolutions. Or assassinations that destroy what has been accomplished, and return the country to ground zero again.
The first young man said: What about Egypt?
I said: The only way to sustain the success of any system of government is clarity of vision, allowing the accumulation of experiences, the rotation of power, and respect for freedoms within the framework of the law.
