Egypt: Could Mursi Become Another
Khomeini? What Egypt Is Entering Is An "Islamist
Winter"
16 December 2012
By Amir Taheri
Judging by the barrage of comments triggered by
President Mohamed Mursi's controversial executive
decree, Egypt has already fallen under a new
dictatorship. Mursi, one commentator insists, has
killed the Arab Spring. What Egypt is entering is an
"Islamist Winter", another pundit observes. Pushing
hyperbole further, some commentators suggest that
Mursi wants to be "another Khomeini".
Almost daily protests at Tahrir Square leave little
doubt that Mursi's decree has touched a raw nerve.
Nevertheless, it is important that any response to
Mursi's move be proportionate. To that end one should
try to understand Mursi's move, without necessarily
justifying it.
On close examination, Mursi's decree appears less
frightening than we are led to believe. Because Egypt
is in transition, it is not quite clear how executive
decisions could be taken and validated. Mursi's decree
is an attempt at dealing with that dilemma, albeit in
a rather gauche way that is open to misunderstanding.
Mursi was elected under a presidential, rather than a
parliamentary, system in which the President of the
Republic is both head of state and head of the
executive branch of government. In such systems, the
president could take and enforce a range of decisions
without the prior approval of the legislative branch
of government.
In the United States, for example, the president has
the power to make numerous appointments, below Cabinet
level, without approval from Congress.
The American president could also take numerous
decisions by using a device called "presidential
finding."
When Congress is in recess, the president could even
make Cabinet level appointments by decree. An example
was the appointment by President George W Bush of John
Bolton as US Ambassador to the United Nations. This
was done because the Democrat-dominated Senate had
threatened to prevent the appointment by
filibustering.
Even on such highly sensitive issues as getting
involved in a foreign war, the president retains
immense powers for up to 90 days. In some cases, as
the recent US intervention in Libya, a presidential
decision could be shaped in ways that circumvent the
War Powers Act.
In France, which also has a presidential system, the
powers of the president are even greater. Unlike his
US counterpart, a French president is not obliged to
have members of his Cabinet vetted and ratified by the
parliament. Nor does he offer the parliament a State
of the Union report.
Needless to say in both the American and French
systems virtually every presidential decision remains
open to legal challenge through the Supreme Court in
the United States and the Constitutional Council in
France. In both countries any citizen could apply for
an injunction. However, even then they cannot expect
the court to pre-empt a presidential decision.
What Mursi is trying to do is to introduce a mechanism
that resembles the American "presidential findings"
and the French "presidential decrees".
Regardless of the content of the decision taken or to
be taken, Mursi has the right to devise a mechanism in
the absence of a legislative power. This is needed to
protect the decision-making process against disruption
through pre-emptive attempts at securing injunctions
from the Constitutional Court. To add to
complications, the very status of that court remains
uncertain if only because the new constitution is not
yet drafted.
To be sure, Egypt should move towards the rule of law.
But the rule of law does not mean rule by lawyers. One
could recall many examples of how the rule of law is
twisted into rule by lawyers in many walks of life.
The US has witnessed at least one presidential
election decided by lawyers rather than the
electorate. Outside politics, we saw how a man charged
with murder was cleared in a criminal court but then
found guilty of exactly the same crime in a civil one.
An example of attempts by lawyers to rule without
being answerable to an electorate came in Pakistan
earlier this year when a coalition of judges and
barristers managed to push the prime minister out in
an act of political vendetta.
Mursi's decree gives him the leeway needed to deal
with issues of national security and sovereignty.
However, even then, and contrary to what he may think,
none of his decisions would be immune from post-factum
legal challenge. There is nothing in the Egyptian
Civil and Criminal Codes to prevent a citizen or group
of citizens from lodging a suit at a court. Thus,
Mursi will not obtain anything more than what is
allowed under the well-established principle of
Sovereign Immunity recognised by both Egyptian and
international laws.
As always, Egyptians have shown their originality by
producing a political show in which lawyers practice
street politics in the name of defending institutional
democracy.
Will Mursi become another Khomeini, that is to say a
destructive element in Egyptian life? I doubt it.
Khomeini won power through terror and violence, and
never submitted himself or his associates to the test
of free elections. Mursi, however, owes his position
to an election organised by his political opponents.
More importantly, perhaps, Mursi, like most Egyptians,
is familiar with the disaster that Khomeinism has
brought to Iran. No sane person would want something
like that to happen to Egypt or any other country for
that matter. All those who wish to prevent a new
dictatorship in Egypt have the right, even the duty,
to be vigilant.
However, focusing on the form of policy-making is at
best futile and at worst harmful to Egyptian hopes for
democracy. What is needed is to focus on the content
of Mursi's policies many of which are deeply
reactionary or misguided. Opposing Mursi must not mean
trying to sabotage his presidency.
Amir Taheri was born in Ahvaz, southwest Iran, and
educated in Tehran, London and Paris. He was Executive
Editor-in-Chief of the daily Kayhan in Iran (1972-79).
In 1980-84, he was Middle East Editor for the Sunday
Times. In 1984-92, he served as member of the
Executive Board of the International Press Institute (IPI).
Between 1980 and 2004, he was a contributor to the
International Herald Tribune. He has written for the
Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, the New York
Times, the London Times, the French magazine Politique
Internationale, and the German weekly Focus. Between
1989 and 2005, he was editorial writer for the German
daily Die Welt. Taheri has published 11 books, some of
which have been translated into 20 languages. He has
been a columnist for Asharq Alawsat since 1987.
Taheri's latest book "The Persian Night" is published
by Encounter Books in London and New York.
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments