Further Thoughts on Egypt's Proposed Constitution

UPDATED AND BUMPED: This article says that "Committee members defended the reform process, saying their proposals are meant as a temporary measure before parliamentary elections, tentatively scheduled to be held in about four months. The popularly elected parliament is then expected to select a constitutional congress of about 100 people to draft an entirely new document. "Making a new constitution is not the role of eight people," said Atif Al Banna, a committee member. "This has to be with the participation of the political parties, political powers and civil-society organizations."  Good!
=========================
My previous thoughts were here. Some of the elements of it are described here, from which I quote:

"The proposed amendments, outlined on Saturday by a judicial committee appointed by Egypt's ruling military council, will be put to a referendum ahead of elections that will hand power back to a civilian government."

[---]

"The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces says it hopes to hold the elections within six months."

What if the referendum rejects the proposed amendments? Wouldn't it be better to promise elections within six months of the passage of the constitution by the electorate?

"The proposed terms for candidacy are also looser than current requirements.

Under the proposed rules, candidates would need the support of 30 parliamentarians, opposed to the former requirement for the backing of 250 members from a range of elected assemblies, including 65 MPs.

Alternatively, they could run as representatives of registered political parties which have at least one member elected to either the upper or lower house of parliament."

Way too restrictive! Almost guarantees that no new ideas or fresh perspectives will be brought to the table. And besides, there is currently a dirth of viable political parties. Voters need to have ample choices.

And here's another rundown of what's in the proposal:

"The new proposed amendments also sets a minimum age for the presidential candidate of 40 years with no maximum limit."

No way. The voters can decide for themselves whether a particular candidate's age is an issue.

And another: "OPPOSITION FIGURE AYMAN NOUR

"I still have reservations on the amendments. I ask to have an elected vice president. There should be a change to give political parties freedom to be formed and there should be a limitation on the powers of the president."

Obviously!!

GAMAL EID, HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST

"These are acceptable changes given the limited time, but I wish that the second article of the constitution could have been changed to make Islamic law one of many principles for legislation and not the principal one."

Hear! Hear!!

MUSTAPHA KAMAL AL-SAYYID, POLITICAL SCIENTIST

"It would have been better to draft the whole constitution rather than to limit the work of the committee. This would have required time but it would have been better to prepare a new constitution that would endow Egypt with a constitution with a respect for human rights and which establishes the proper balance between the three branches of government.

"The constitution provides for the right of Egyptians to establish political parties according to the law but the law restricts the right to establish political parties."

"It could have been simply said (in the amendments) that Egyptians have the right to establish political parties, with founders simply informing the authorities."

"We need to change this law.""

Hear! Hear!

Lets hope these voices get ample opportunity to participate in the debate. I hope Egyptians reject the proposed amendments and send it back to the drawing board WITHOUT the participation of army. Individual members of the armed forces, of course, can and should be allowed to participate freely, but not on an officially delegated capacity. The army has no business writing constitutions.

Moreover, simply removing offensive clauses, as demanded by the protesters, is rather uninspired. Egypt has an opportunity to remake itself. Unless there are other amendments that haven't made the headlines, this one will not likely provide the spark that is needed.  One thing that hasn't been mentioned in any of the articles I've read is whether and how future amendments can be made. Perhaps the referendum should specify that if these amendments are rejected, a broadly based committee of knowledgeable citizens should be charged with rewriting the whole thing.