Egyptions Vote To Accept Changes to their Constitution

[jimmy olsen]

This is definitely a good start. Lets hope that momentum carries and a legitimate civil society starts forming.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703292304576212680100740432.html

Egypt Approves Amendments

By MATTHEW ROSENBERG and MATT BRADLEY

CAIRO—Egyptians voted in overwhelming numbers to approve a set of constitutional amendments, setting the stage for Egypt's first truly contested parliamentary and presidential elections in decades.

Saturday's historic referendum on the amendments saw millions of enthusiastic Egyptians wait patiently for hours to cast ballots in what for almost everyone was a novelty—a vote in which the result wasn't effectively predetermined.

The largely peaceful and fraud-free vote was a marked contrast to past elections and a glimpse of how much has changed in Egypt in the weeks since President Hosni Mubarak stepped down amid widespread unrest, ending decades of single-party, autocratic rule.

Yet Saturday's referendum also offered early clues into the rifts likely to shape Egyptian politics in the coming months and years. Many of the largely secular liberals who led the revolution that ousted Mr. Mubarak were opposed to the amendments, strongly suggesting the protest leaders have fallen out of sync with the vast majority of Egyptians.

Protest leaders criticized the amendments as part of a rushed and problematic timeline for establishing democracy; approving the changes started the clock on a race they said they are unprepared to run because they are still setting up parties.

Almost alone among the political groups in support of the amendments were the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group outlawed under Mr. Mubarak, and the National Democratic Party, the former president's ruling party. Both hope to capitalize on their already strong organizations in summer elections for parliament, which will then be charged with writing an entirely new constitution.

But on Sunday, many Egyptians were still basking in the aftermath of what appeared to be the first relatively fair and violence-free election in their lifetimes. Jubilant residents of Cairo honked horns and set off fireworks after the results were announced. Journalists covering the announcement abandoned any pretenses of objectivity and yelled "Allahu Akbar!"—"God is Great!"—when the tallies were read out by officials.

"It's not important what the result is, it's important that it was fair," said Abdul Rahman Yusuf, a leader of the revolution.

Electoral officials said 77% of voters endorsed immediately approving the amendments, which include limiting the president to a pair of four-year terms and restoring the role of Egypt's relatively independent judiciary in overseeing elections. They were devised by a panel of judges and lawyers convened by the military shortly after Mr. Mubarak stepped down and the constitution—which concentrated power in the hands of the president alone—was suspended.

Roughly 18 million people, or 41% of eligible voters, voted, electoral officials said. In contrast, a mere six million people voted in parliamentary elections held only four months ago.

The prospect of a free and fair election in the Arab world's most populous country stood as a potential milestone in the region at a moment when democratic movements across the Middle East are faltering. There have been bloody crackdowns on pro-democracy protests in Bahrain and Yemen in recent days, and Libya appears to be in the opening stages of a full-out—and possibly protracted—civil war.

Despite the weekend's festive atmosphere in Egypt, there were problems during the vote, such as a lack of proper ballots in some places and sporadic violence. The worst incident was an attack by stone-throwing men that prevented opposition leader Mohammed ElBaradei from voting.

Observers attributed the problems to hasty preparations by the military, not malfeasance. But they also said the problems didn't inspire confidence that a similarly peaceful and clean parliamentary vote could be quickly organized.

"There were a lot of deficiencies and bad preparation" in the referendum, said Bahieddin Hassan, director of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights. He argued that a higher-stakes contest—such as a parliamentary election—could have been derailed by the lack of adequate preparation or visible security.

"If we were talking about a political election with many candidates, I think it would have been disaster," he said.

Saturday's referendum also hinted at how Egypt's one longstanding religious divide now appears to be playing out along political lines. Leaders of Egypt's Coptic Orthodox Church—whose adherents account for about 10% of the country's 80 million people—came out against the amendments. None of the amendments dealt with the religion, and Coptic leaders told followers their opposition was about stymieing the perceived electoral strength of Muslim Brotherhood.

"It was obvious that using religion in this conflict or this argument made it easier for the Egyptians to say 'yes,'" said Shadi Al Ghazali Harb, a member of the Revolutionary Youth Coalition. "So we are worried about how things will run especially in the campaigning because religion was intensely used. This is our main worry."
— Charles Levinson contributed to this article.

[Habbaku]

Egypt is so fucked that they can't even get a constitution. 

Edit : Tim learns to spell!

[Eddie Teach]

This is definitely a good start.

CAIRO—Egyptians voted in overwhelming numbers to approve a set of constitutional amendments, setting the stage for Egypt's first truly contested parliamentary and presidential elections in decades.

Yet Saturday's referendum also offered early clues into the rifts likely to shape Egyptian politics in the coming months and years. Many of the largely secular liberals who led the revolution that ousted Mr. Mubarak were opposed to the amendments, strongly suggesting the protest leaders have fallen out of sync with the vast majority of Egyptians.

Protest leaders criticized the amendments as part of a rushed and problematic timeline for establishing democracy; approving the changes started the clock on a race they said they are unprepared to run because they are still setting up parties.

Almost alone among the political groups in support of the amendments were the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group outlawed under Mr. Mubarak, and the National Democratic Party, the former president's ruling party. Both hope to capitalize on their already strong organizations in summer elections for parliament, which will then be charged with writing an entirely new constitution.

Doesn't sound very promising to me.

[Tamas]

This is definitely a good start.

CAIRO—Egyptians voted in overwhelming numbers to approve a set of constitutional amendments, setting the stage for Egypt's first truly contested parliamentary and presidential elections in decades.

Yet Saturday's referendum also offered early clues into the rifts likely to shape Egyptian politics in the coming months and years. Many of the largely secular liberals who led the revolution that ousted Mr. Mubarak were opposed to the amendments, strongly suggesting the protest leaders have fallen out of sync with the vast majority of Egyptians.

Protest leaders criticized the amendments as part of a rushed and problematic timeline for establishing democracy; approving the changes started the clock on a race they said they are unprepared to run because they are still setting up parties.

Almost alone among the political groups in support of the amendments were the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group outlawed under Mr. Mubarak, and the National Democratic Party, the former president's ruling party. Both hope to capitalize on their already strong organizations in summer elections for parliament, which will then be charged with writing an entirely new constitution.

Doesn't sound very promising to me.

In shitholes like the Arab world, rampant (in this case religious) populism is the inevitable end result of democracy, so it doesn't really matter wether the liberals have time to set up parties or not.

[Martinus]

Egyptions? Are these some new particle types?

[Martinus]

In shitholes like the Arab world, rampant (in this case religious) populism is the inevitable end result of democracy, so it doesn't really matter wether the liberals have time to set up parties or not.

It would be a valid denouncement, if rampant (in this case nationalist/fascist) populism wasn't the inevitable end result of democracy in your own shithole.

[Martinus]

And in any case, while there is always a risk the Muslim Brotherhood may be lying through their teeth, the fact that they make an effort to appear harmless and pluralistic is at least a sign that Egyptian people are not sold on an islamist republic. Plus, from what I read, the younger echelons of the brotherhood are far from being fanatical, and in fact are clamoring for the brotherhood to adopt a more democratic programme in the first place (making them not unlike a "Christian" party in the Eastern Europe).

This can still go entirely pearshaped, of course, but so far the signs have been rather hopeful. They remind me of Poland in 1989. We still plunged into some right wing / religious nuttery but it is getting better.

[Tamas]

In shitholes like the Arab world, rampant (in this case religious) populism is the inevitable end result of democracy, so it doesn't really matter wether the liberals have time to set up parties or not.

It would be a valid denouncement, if rampant (in this case nationalist/fascist) populism wasn't the inevitable end result of democracy in your own shithole.

Precisely my point. And don't forget it took your version of national populism to be the laughing stock of Europe for years to discredit it in the short term, allowing a spell of liberal governance.

[Eddie Teach]

In shitholes like the Arab world, rampant (in this case religious) populism is the inevitable end result of democracy, so it doesn't really matter wether the liberals have time to set up parties or not.

Perhaps not, but Tim's comment about an article on the Muslim Brotherhood beating the secular/liberal/moderate side handily makes me wonder if he actually read the article before posting it.

[jimmy olsen]

In shitholes like the Arab world, rampant (in this case religious) populism is the inevitable end result of democracy, so it doesn't really matter wether the liberals have time to set up parties or not.

Perhaps not, but Tim's comment about an article on the Muslim Brotherhood beating the secular/liberal/moderate side handily makes me wonder if he actually read the article before posting it.

I fail to see how holding a free and fair election in what was a couple of months ago a dictatorship, can be characterized as anything other than a good start.

[CountDeMoney]

LOL Egyptions

[CountDeMoney]

Eegypshuns

[Brazen]

Pharaoh nuff.

[Savonarola]

I fail to see how holding a free and fair election in what was a couple of months ago a dictatorship, can be characterized as anything other than a good start.

Totalitarian governments have risen after a period of democracy, generally due to the public's frustration with the slow pace of reform which comes after the revolution.  A single strong man appears to be capable of bringing reforms more quickly and a worse form of government than the Ancien Regime arises. 

In Egypt the situation is different than many in the past.  The Egyptians are replacing a strong man rather than a traditional monarchy (as was the case in Russia or France.)  The nascent government is not facing a worldwide crisis like the Great Depression as Italy, Spain and Germany were.  There is not a specific religious figure leading the revolution as was the case in Iran.  Even so I would not encourage unbridled optimism; it may be a good start as you said, but it could easily go wrong as well.

[Sheilbh]

Perhaps not, but Tim's comment about an article on the Muslim Brotherhood beating the secular/liberal/moderate side handily makes me wonder if he actually read the article before posting it.

That's not really fair.  The Army, the remnants of the regime and the Brotherhood were pushing for a 'yes' vote.  But I think the big argument was between the 'yes' campaign saying this will get the army out of politics, we can have an election and make further amendments later and the 'no' campaign that was basically pushing for a far more total revolution, that the army stay as guarantors for now but elect a constituent assembly some time over the next year.  So I don't think Islamist vs secular/liberal/moderate is accurate.

One position I read which I think is fair is that ultimately there was an elitism to the 'no' campaign which was quite unattractive and a lot of people would vote 'yes' because they want stability and the clear outlined timetable rather than back to February 11, trying to fumble a way forward and having to write a new constitution.