Talk Showrlament

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.