Egypt court suspends constitutional assembly

[hellheaven1987]

Because the assembly is not liberal enough.

A court in Egypt has suspended the 100-member assembly appointed last month to draft the country's new constitution.

Several lawsuits had demanded Cairo's Administrative Court block the decision to form the panel as it did not reflect the diversity of Egyptian society.

They said women, young people and minorities were under-represented.

Islamists from the Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party and the Salafist Nour party, which dominate parliament, have a near-majority.

Liberals and secularists fear some of them would like to amend the constitution so that it follows the principles of Islamic law more strictly.

The new document will also determine the rights of Egypt's religious and ethnic minority groups and the balance of power between the president - previously the supreme authority - and parliament.

Once the assembly has produced a draft, it will be put to a referendum. It had been hoped that would take place before May's presidential election.

Source

I find this is quite interesting since it brings out the issue of democracy vs liberalism - if the majority want to be more conservative, is it right to deny the wish of majority and instead follow the interest of minority?

Either way, it seems Egyptian military finally show its claws...

[Tiberios]

Minorities in Egypt should be protected from discrimination or oppression by a new Constitution. Otherwise it's just a new kind of dictatorship IMO.

[AqD]

Minorities in Egypt should be protected from discrimination or oppression by a new Constitution. Otherwise it's just a new kind of dictatorship IMO.

A democracy is always the majority's dictatorship. Even minority protection comes from them.

[Admiral Piett]

A democracy is always the majority's dictatorship. Even minority protection comes from them.

A pure form of democracy is. A representative republican government with hard-coded checks and balances prevents tyranny of the majority.

[PointOfViewGun]

A pure form of democracy is. A representative republican government with hard-coded checks and balances prevents tyranny of the majority.

Pure democracy does not exist and I don't think it can ever do.
The checks and balances are also created at the will of the majority. In a way, the rights of a minority are protected because the majority decided so at an earlier time. The majority also preserves the right to change those rights completely as well. Majority sometimes becomes 2/3, sometimes 1/2 but I prefer the rule of overwhelming majority of 3/4.

[Admiral Piett]

Pure democracy does not exist and I don't think it can ever do.
The checks and balances are also created at the will of the majority. In a way, the rights of a minority are protected because the majority decided so at an earlier time. The majority also preserves the right to change those rights completely as well. Majority sometimes becomes 2/3, sometimes 1/2 but I prefer the rule of overwhelming majority of 3/4.

It's a matter of social preference then I guess. 2/3rds to me seems more fair to the minority.

[Exarch]

just a question; all those ppl who were all in favour of the arab spring, how many of you are still in favour of the military junta holding power over Egypt, rather than letting the populist islamist muslim brotherhood control egypt? do i smell hypocrisy?democracy lite's only good if the cabal that controls the strings is an ally?
is that why the Bahraini monarchy and the Saudis are allowed to get away with turning protestors into hamburger whilst Syrian rebels are afforded all the airtime they can get?

[Prosaic Visitant]

just a question; all those ppl who were all in favour of the arab spring, how many of you are still in favour of the military junta holding power over Egypt, rather than letting the populist islamist muslim brotherhood control egypt? do i smell hypocrisy?democracy lite's only good if the cabal that controls the strings is an ally?
is that why the Bahraini monarchy and the Saudis are allowed to get away with turning protestors into hamburger whilst Syrian rebels are afforded all the airtime they can get?

Like you I preferred a dictator who was compliant and keep his people obedient; no-one has need of rights.

[Surgeon]

I feel like this might be happening a lot as long as the Egyptian army is on USA's payroll.

[Admiral Piett]

I feel like this might be happening a lot as long as the Egyptian army is on USA's payroll.

It's not American inspired. It's the judicial court and military brass looking out for its own survival.

Is there, by any chance, a link to what some of the preliminary ideas for the new constitution are?

[Surgeon]

It's not American inspired. It's the judicial court and military brass looking out for its own survival.

Is there, by any chance, a link to what some of the preliminary ideas for the new constitution are?

Well I meant that the military is still receiving money from the USA as part of the peace treaty with Israel from way back. They probably don't want to risks Islamists taking over and potentially breaking the treaty.

[Blaze86420]

Democracy applies to everyone but Islamists, I saw this coming from a mile away.

[DimeBagHo]

Democracy applies to everyone but Islamists, I saw this coming from a mile away.

Advocates of pure majoritarianism are few and far between, and objections to pure majoritarianism go right to the heart of theoretical justifications for democracy. If 51% of the population can vote to murder or rob the other 49% then the 49% have zero reason to accept the authority of either the government or the constitutional regime. Any claims that the 49% should accept the rule of the 51% would be utterly worthless. So pretty much every theoretical account of democracy requires that a democratic constitutional order must be broadly acceptable to all reasonable people, and according to most accounts that requires substantive constraints on the power of the state.

[motiv-8]

Either way, it seems Egyptian military finally show its claws...

What does this have to do with the military? This was a decision taken by a court of law and it's a decision which, by the way, has been supported by both al-Azhar university and the Egyptian Coptic Church.

This isn't about trumping democracy, this is about drafting a constitution to enshrine rights. The court decision is about granting more time to come up with the ideal way to draft exactly such a document. Let's chill out with the hyperbole about 'hypocrisy' and 'military claws' and talk about what's going on instead of what isn't. Nearly everywhere I've read about this event has been quite positive, so I'm extremely puzzled at the TWC reaction -- maybe it's being typically cynical today.

[frozenprince]

What does this have to do with the military? This was a decision taken by a court of law and it's a decision which, by the way, has been supported by both al-Azhar university and the Egyptian Coptic Church.

This isn't about trumping democracy, this is about drafting a constitution to enshrine rights. The court decision is about granting more time to come up with the ideal way to draft exactly such a document. Let's chill out with the hyperbole about 'hypocrisy' and 'military claws' and talk about what's going on instead of what isn't. Nearly everywhere I've read about this event has been quite positive, so I'm extremely puzzled at the TWC reaction -- maybe it's being typically cynical today.

This^

Honestly, a constitution isn't ratified overnight. Changes are made constantly during drafting I would assume. Where in that article does it say it will never be done? Or that its being intentionally pushed to the back? They HOPED to have it done by the elections in May, doesn't meen it was guaranted. This is just a lot of freaking out over not that much of a story.

[hellheaven1987]

Honestly, a constitution isn't ratified overnight. Changes are made constantly during drafting I would assume. Where in that article does it say it will never be done? Or that its being intentionally pushed to the back? They HOPED to have it done by the elections in May, doesn't meen it was guaranted. This is just a lot of freaking out over not that much of a story.

The Administrative Court did not give the reasons for the ruling to suspend the constitutional assembly, stating only that it had halted "the implementation of the decision by the speaker of parliament" to form it and had referred the question of its legitimacy to a legal adviser.

"The constituent assembly is unrepresentative of Egyptians," said the advisory council of the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces.

If the court decision is legal and justified why they needed the Army to speak for them? Clearly there are some dirty plays behind all this.

[Poet]

Because the assembly is not liberal enough.



Source

I find this is quite interesting since it brings out the issue of democracy vs liberalism - if the majority want to be more conservative, is it right to deny the wish of majority and instead follow the interest of minority?

Either way, it seems Egyptian military finally show its claws...

Surprising, somehow our armies (Muslim countries) just act like their western masters, you don't know when and from where they would hit. I think this is utterly despicable, if in France and Switzerland, democracy can simply on minority rights to religion and culture, at least Egyptians should have liberty to form constitution on Islamic guidelines. People trusted them for this purpose. If Turks are rejecting Ultra Kemalism, nowhere in hell rest of the Muslim nations can be forced to follow secularism. However, I wish that Islamic parties do not show immaturity like Pakistani Islamic parties, and their concept of Islam should be productive and progressive. For welfare of people and society. Its a shame that Nordic countries know "Islam" better than us.

[Prosaic Visitant]

Surprising, somehow our armies (Muslim countries) just act like their western masters, you don't know when and from where they would hit. I think this is utterly despicable, if in France and Switzerland, democracy can simply on minority rights to religion and culture, at least Egyptians should have liberty to form constitution on Islamic guidelines. People trusted them for this purpose. If Turks are rejecting Ultra Kemalism, nowhere in hell rest of the Muslim nations can be forced to follow secularism. However, I wish that Islamic parties do not show immaturity like Pakistani Islamic parties, and their concept of Islam should be productive and progressive. For welfare of people and society. Its a shame that Nordic countries know "Islam" better than us.

What in Jupiter's name is "Ultra Kemalism"?
I don't recall the Egyptian military being involved in this event.
Western militaries generally don't go interfering with our politics.

[Poet]

What in Jupiter's name is "Ultra Kemalism"?
I don't recall the Egyptian military being involved in this event.
Western militaries generally don't go interfering with our politics.

I said their "western masters", that does not necessarily means their masters in army but in Govt.

Ultra

Kemalism

In short the only Muslim nation which was brought to the verge of secularism by hook or by crook was Turkish nation and their choice in elections shows that they are going to the opposite side. If democracy means rule of people, this shouldn't matter whether people are Muslims or not.

[PointOfViewGun]

I said their "western masters", that does not necessarily means their masters in army but in Govt.

Ultra

Kemalism

In short the only Muslim nation which was brought to the verge of secularism by hook or by crook was Turkish nation and their choice in elections shows that they are going to the opposite side. If democracy means rule of people, this shouldn't matter whether people are Muslims or not.

Maybe you should read the Kemalism article yourself.