Why did I reach this conclusion, why will I say NO?
1. Presidential Powers: In a country still having people protesting saying "We are Sorry Mubarak", I don't trust any president with such Devine powers in the constitution. I don't even trust myself if I have all these powers. So what will oblige the new president to call for a consitution that will minimize his or her authorities
to less than half. Please don't say: Tahrir Square, this is like "Wednak Meneen ya Go7a" (Arabic quote for taking the long and sophisticated way instead of cutting it short and simple)! I do support having the next president for 1 term only.2. The Package voting: (voting for the whole changes) is simply unfair and doesn't make sense because if I don't agree with any of the articles, I have to say No for the rest as well. For example, I am pro cancelling article 179 (Terrorism), but at the same time against some of the modifications in article 75 (Marriage, & No max. Age), and some other points, then simply I can't say yes.
3. No Options: Even if they will have it as a package there should be 2 options. For example in article 139, I am for obliging the president to have a Vice-President, but I am not for having it by appointment (what prohibits him of getting his cousin, or even son as a VP!). Electing a VP will help us to have more control on the absolute power of the president, and have smooth transition of power till the fixed elections date. I would have preferred to have 2 or 3 clear strategies or plans to choose from.
4. Obligation for a New Constitution: article 189 obliges People's assembly to call for a new constitution, and says nothing about obliging the president to call for it if he was elected first! In addition, the committee responsible for establishing the new constution should be elected directly from the people like what happened in many countries all over the world (Tunisia will do it in July).
5. People's Assembly elections: Voting yes means I agree on the Supreme Council plan to have parliament elections in June, and this is a scary thought for me. Elections while the revolution is not over yet, and parties are not formed yet, is very risky and won't have real reflection of the street powers specially if we continued electing people the same way we do (single vs. coalition lists).
6. Gaining Time: There should be an extra point in the referendum giving us the option of what will be done if the majority said no (most prob. re-amending, or hopefully new constitution). I think saying No will oblige the Supreme council to consider what the people want and stop the unrealistic plan of finishing everything by August without having clear and solid steps in paving the way for democracy and new parties representation.
The Government has launched a poll to see the overall direction of the people regarding this issue (they finall decide to make use of the IDSC) and it ended up in 59% saying No.
I think the best solution is setting some "Mabade2 Destoreya" that can temporarily replace the illegitimate constitution and make us survive for the next 6 months while working on a new constitution leading to electing a new People's assembly and eventually a new president by the end of 2011.
I didn't write this article to make you say no, it is your vote and you are responsible for it. I was just reflecting my thoughts, findings, and concerns. The only thing I am urging you to do is to go and vote. I am against boycotting it as I see it very risky... Experience having a value and the ability of making a difference.
For me, I will GO and say NO...
Mohaly
Link to Amendments: http://www.almasryalyoum.com/node/332005
well said sir
ReplyDeletei was confused but now i can say that i made up my mind
thank you
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDina Refaat Great Article Mohamed,
ReplyDeleteI have questions:
for number 4: why is it a must if we say yes then the Supreme Council will do Parliament elections first?
For number 6: I believe they have put the threat of time, but they don't really mean it.. if they still see our pressure, I think they will stay .. what do u think?
Mabade2 dostooreya is not really a must for the coming 6 months 3ashan hatefred e7tegagat aktar .. I don't mind having the Supreme council now ma3a wogood el shorta .. and el 7okooma .. until we get the president .. what do u think?
I am not sharing my decision so far, but I Love ur article!
----------------
Mohamed Aly Thanks Dina :)
4. Coz the way it was written u will find (specially 189 mokarar) that the President will be there after the Parliament).
6. I cant deal with their intensions, I am dealing with what was announced and so far applied. I hope so.
Mabade2 is not a must, it was just a suggestion if they want to continue with the fear of feeling that it is a coup. But it is better to have madabe2 so that officially kill 1971 constitution that is scary in giving Divine powers to anyone who will be a president.
Take Your time .. but think deeply, each vote is a responsibility.
Well said doctor, you made it very clear for me, i am still reading the constitution so i can form a complete idea in order to take a right decision but i do thank you sir for your thoughts bgad you made it crystal clear for me as usual, bless you :)
ReplyDeleteAl Hamdullah :)
ReplyDeletecheck this out
ReplyDeletehttp://www.alwafd.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=23311%3A%D8%A8%D8%B3%D8%B7%D9%88%D9%8A%D8%B3%D9%8A-%D9%8A%D8%B7%D8%B1%D8%AD-%D8%A5%D8%B9%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%A7-%D8%AF%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A7-%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%A7&catid=102%3A%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%B9+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%8A&Itemid=105
I do though have one big concern: Who or what guarantees me that when a new constitution is made article 2 will remain as it is?
ReplyDeleteMahmoud:
ReplyDeleteThe 2nd article wasnt in 1971 constitution till 1980 when Sadat wanted to open the presidency terms and so he added this article so that people can vote yes for the whole package.
Egypt doesnt need an article in the consitution to tell that it is an islamic country, it is an islamic country whether in population or culture, and as Makram Ebied said : Ana Muslim Watanan we Masee7y deenan.
In England the head of church is the queen and this is not part of the constitution.
In all cases, I guess that Article 2 issue can be solved by keeping adding a small part saying: "and other relegions can be applying their own laws in their personal issues".
د.يحيى الجمل "نائب رئيس الوزراء" في برنامج "مصر النهارده":لو سقط الإستفتاء سنتحرك نحو إعلان دستوري مؤقت و جمعية تأسيسية لدستور جديد
ReplyDeleteDoes saying yes means that they will activate the old constitution?
ReplyDeleteYes means that the 1971 constitution but updated with the suggested amendments will be the constitution that will govern the parliament and new president till we have a new constitution.
ReplyDeleteThanks Dr. for your effort to write this article it's more than perfect, it makes it easy for me and for everyone to understand the constitutional amendments.Me too will go and say NOOOOOO we Rabena ma3ana ISA.
ReplyDeleteDr. don't you think that the scenarios built on voting No is hypothetical?
ReplyDeleteSara, and those built on yes too because lel2asaf there is a big shortage in information of what is next in both cases.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if you refer to points 2,3 there are not hypothetical.
So I am saying no Saklan (the idea itself) and mawdou3an (some of the amendments).
But I will accept what the majority chooses even if I am not convinced with..
Thank You Irene :)
ReplyDelete