Last Update 22:46
Thursday, 24 October 2019

New Egyptian constitution scraps parliamentary quota for workers and farmers

Previous constitutions had mandated that 50 percent of parliamentarians should be either workers or farmers

Ahram Online , Monday 18 Nov 2013
Share/Bookmark
Views: 2428
Share/Bookmark
Views: 2428

The fifty-member committee responsible for amending Egypt's constitution has removed an article mandating that 50 percent of members of parliament should be either workers or farmers.

Ahmed Eid, a member of the drafting committee, told reporters on Monday that the committee voted to cancel the article, although some had argued for keeping it.

The quota has been in place since the 1960s, but became controversial in recent years, with some arguing that the loose definition of what it means to be a worker or a farmer meant that it could be exploited by those in power.

Some labour and farmers' unions supported the quota, arguing that it was important for the proper representation of Egyptian society.

The drafting committee discussed various articles related to the electoral system on Monday.

According to committee member Gaber Nassar, the committee will choose between three voting systems: the individual candidate voting system, the list voting system, and the mixed voting system. According to Nassar, the committee favours the individual system.

Short link:

 

Email
 
Name
 
Comment's
Title
 
Comment
Ahram Online welcomes readers' comments on all issues covered by the site, along with any criticisms and/or corrections. Readers are asked to limit their feedback to a maximum of 1000 characters (roughly 200 words). All comments/criticisms will, however, be subject to the following code
  • We will not publish comments which contain rude or abusive language, libelous statements, slander and personal attacks against any person/s.
  • We will not publish comments which contain racist remarks or any kind of racial or religious incitement against any group of people, in Egypt or outside it.
  • We welcome criticism of our reports and articles but we will not publish personal attacks, slander or fabrications directed against our reporters and contributing writers.
  • We reserve the right to correct, when at all possible, obvious errors in spelling and grammar. However, due to time and staffing constraints such corrections will not be made across the board or on a regular basis.
2



neil
19-11-2013 03:09pm
1-
0+
time to listen to reason
first, oh yea demanders of quotas, "I told you so". You = womens council, Copts, farmers, 'workers', [also berbers, beduion, nubian, even youth ] should have fought to keep the Upper Chamber [used by every G7 country] thst's what it's for [quotas, plus for smaller regions]. as for the electoral system, everyone knows the single-seat system is for ikhwan and mubarak's 'national' party. talk about a counter-revolution.
Email
 
Name
 
Comment's Title
 
Comment
1



Jon
19-11-2013 01:55am
2-
2+
The German system is best
Germany has a mixed voting system, where all voters have two votes: One for the person you want to represent you in the single seat constituency, the other for the party list of your preference. The personal candidate can be independent or member of a party (most are party members). The party representation is weighed against how many seats the party won in the single seat districts, so that the party representation in parliament is near mathematically correct. Parties with less then 4% can not win these seats, but they still keep their single seat mandates. Hence, you get the best of both worlds: One visible parliament member representing your district. A fair representation for minority parties. A hurdle for small parties, so that it shall be possible to create majority governments.
Email
 
Name
 
Comment's Title
 
Comment
neil
20-11-2013 12:26pm
0-
0+
corrections
You just said that the votes in the sinqle seats qo to parties, so why repeat the sloqan that they are ‘independent’? in countries that use the sinqle-seat system, less than 1% members elected are independents. /// You said there is a second vote (correct), then you say the ‘proportional’ vote is calculated from the first vote (wronq). Because voters have a second vote, they systematically qive the second one to another party, meaninq the final count could not be any further from the true one. The 5% threshold is meant to keep out frinq parties, or discouraqe parties from splittinq, no country usinq the mixed system has ever had a majority qovernment.
Latest

© 2010 Ahram Online.