Egypt's constitution referendum and the ghosts of «the mandate of the jurist»

Ended Egypt's referendum on constitutional amendments and voted in the vast majority of Egyptians yes to amend the Constitution by as much as 77 percent of the total participants in the referendum, but that what happened before and during the vote on the referendum picking the wound can not heal easily in the Egyptian national community that was divided into two groups Team, «Yes», ​​which included the Islamic trend Btnoieth of moderate Islamists and Salafis, and the team «No», which lined up when the rest of currents national movement-oriented Marxism, liberalism and nationalism combined with a broad sector of the youth revolution of January 25.
Vali_kalip the Great, which resulted from this division is problematic is twofold first
part the subject of the division itself about the way that can be done through a new constitution for the country's choice between the projector full of the Constitution of 1971 and the development of another constitution in accordance with the scenario team does not, or acceptance of an amendment to Part This opens the door to the Constitution amended in full through the founding committee of elected members of Parliament after the parliamentary and presidential elections in accordance with the scenario group Yes.
 The second problem relates to the manner in which he conducted in which the opponents of the political scene in Egypt, the conflict over the constitution.
In regard to the first aspect I would like to refer to the logical and the relevance of the motives that prompted both sides to adopt the saying yes or no, but the problem lies in the subject of the dispute itself. The Constitution serves as the equivalent of the substantive and legal framework for the concept of social contract, who knows the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau as the formula is formed under the political will of the State according to the total of wills of its members, which means that the fundamental characteristic that distinguishes the Constitution is in fact a political framework able to accommodate all the national forces, and then expressing their will collectively surpassing their differences and its own ideology and expression as well as a moment of national consensus in among them, especially that the phase of constitution-making characterized as the stage of a constituent and a landmark, and then the conversion to the stage of lining up political polarization of ideological is a waste of their value in bulk, in particular that Article 189 of the Constitution that have been approved by referendum and give the right of every Head of State and the Council of People's Assembly (parliament) to apply for the amendment of one or more of the Constitution obliges us to two options are both over, if they are included in the country's new constitution, which will elect the next parliament the members of its constituent may once again become the Constitution into an instrument of hands of the president and the legislature, then the mechanism developed will make the amendment to the Constitution was plausible and possible, whenever the President or changed parliamentary blocs in parliament, which transmit the institution of the presidency and the parliament to the branches above the Constitution, a situation that is flawed constitutionally and politically on the grounds that the constitution is a document that outlines essentially the powers both branches and the extent of the legality of their practice. However, if the cancellation of the new Constitution would mean that the parliamentary blocs, which will be elected in September (September) next will have the exclusive right to choose the members of the Commission on the constitution what is the exclusion of the forces which will fail to obtain parliamentary representation well into the next election what deepens the state of fragmentation inside the Egyptian national community, this is for the first claw.
As for the second part, the how he conducted these parties of this conflict over the constitution Chi reminiscent of a political backlash in Egypt before the twenty-fifth of January (January). Yes team is used religious propaganda to encourage the public to vote according to his vision and his will. And went to the extent of the farce with a message to the masses by some activists of this group belonging to the Salafist groups that voting yes is an Islamic duty and vote without sin enters the owner-fire.Named one of their elders, but the referendum process itself b «Battle of funds». The team does not have voting yes accused of betraying the blood of the martyrs of the revolution approval of this constitutional amendment does not meet the full demands of the revolution, which means that we are facing the same political culture that prevailed throughout the Mubarak era, both employ the religious edict in the service of political goals, as did the supporters of Yes or by accusing opponents of treason, as did supporters do not, reflecting the structural crisis experienced by Egyptian political elite, as they did not get rid of after the disease era Mubarak and returned again to the rotation in the orbit of the mandate of the jurist and tutelage on the political choice of the masses and use the weapon of treachery to terrorize opponents dumped the country into a spiral of controversy by the demagogic rhetoric about the Constitution of the formula for national consensus into an arena of conflict between supporters of the Yes and No supporters.
أحدث أقدم

نموذج الاتصال