The strongest justification to allowing Egypt’s probable constitutional
amendment is the February 2019 proposal of one-fifth of the House of
Representatives to propose legislative changes. The proposed amendment to Article 140 of the
Constitution would extend presidential terms from four to six years, and would
allow for running for re-election for another two terms – meaning that the
incumbent Sisi could stay in office until 2034. The amendments would also grant
the President authority to choose the Supreme Constitutional Court’s President
and its new members, chairs of all other judicial authorities, and the Public
Prosecutor. In other words, the power to choose key figures who play a substantial
role in safeguarding the integrity of the judicial system.
On 13 February the Parliament will commence discussions to amend
the Constitution, and will subsequently decide on behalf of over 80 million Egyptians
whether their country would further entrench itself in military rule and
political reprehension, or take a leap of faith towards democracy – with all
the associated costs attached to a democracy that cannot be reigned.
But all of this did not happen overnight. Originally, Article
140 of the Constitution imposes a two-term limit, and Article 226 prohibits
amendments to texts pertaining to the re-election of the president of the
Republic…unless the amendment brings more guarantees.
What happened? How could one fifth of the Parliament manage to
sway the remaining members to reconsider this change? How could a nation
that has been through a difficult political, social, and ideological turmoil
succumb to void rhetoric that insists on autocracy in return for national
security.
In my modest opinion, the key to the success of this strategy is
a clever technique that employed the media, the art of talk, and the power of
emotions. One can easily flip through YouTube channels in search for talk shows
– and a plethora they are. Most of the shows aired relate to one main theme:
the polarisation of the society. The with and the against…the liberal and the
conservative…the military and the brotherhood…the secular and the religious. Not
only do these heated and fierce discussions engage the audience and flare their
emotions, but they also subtly push the viewer to reach a logical conclusion:
the Egyptians are divided, on everything, and somehow stability must be
preserved, at any cost.
This strategy is not a novelty in the Arab world, whereby sentimentalism, prejudice, and the sense of community before God, have been key ingredients in feeding an insatiable people with a false sense of meaning, and security. However, what was previously exercised by security forces, the intelligence, and regulatory restrictions to human activity and thought, is not being artfully performed by journalists and talk show hosts. Bring in a charismatic representative on a school of thought and allow him to win over the public. Invite in a counter school representative and encourage an 'open' debate. The result is a screaming competition that is extremely engaging and entertaining - and most importantly, influencing.
Circling back on the main argument on the Parliament’s quiet
easy and successful mission to democratically invite undemocratic constitutional
amendments, and the probable favourable vote in tomorrow’s discussions, one
must conclude that the premise of divide and conquer has never been more
successful than nowadays. Interestingly, instead of within the reams of Parliament, discussions were brought before viewers in direct TV drama. Is this proposal contested? Well, flick
for a talk show check for yourself.
