Last Saturday's national dialogue meeting [to discuss the constitution] was a major shift in the Egyptian political scene. If we want to find realistic solutions to our cascading crises we must focus on the “final product” rather than resorting to endless debates about who came [to the meeting] and who didn’t. Every time we resort to this debate it ends up incriminating the opposition [the majority of which boycotted it] front and foremost. It is highly unreasonable to refuse dialogue and then say “the president is talking with himself!”
One of the most important features of the final product [of the meeting] is that the presidency benefited a lot by expanding its circle of consultation and legal expertise. Add to this the presidency's notable flexibility in adopting the decision of this extensive advisory body. All of this is to be commended and we confirm the need to continue with the same attitude in future.
The ball now is in the people's court. So it is not the opposition or the ruling party that will decide the fate of the country. We are now resorting to the polls for the fourth time since the revolution. It is now the people who will decide how to end this crisis through free and direct elections. Now the roadmap is clear for both paths – the yes-path and the no-path – which was something we distinctly and clearly missed before the dialogue on Saturday.
There is no need to take this as intransigence or favouring one opinion over the other. It is true that the word “compatibility” has a nice ring to it since it expresses satisfying everyone, but it can never overrule the inevitability of differences. Rather, it regulates how we handle such differences. But does compatibility mean convincing me of your view point? If this was true, why was voting invented?
I never thought I would have to explain the meaning of “majority vote." The fact is that all constitutions are either written by constituent assemblies that directly “acknowledge” a constitution provided that it is approved by either two-thirds of its members or by a simple majority (50+1), after which it is put for public referendum. But to combine both methods is something really strange!
The extent of the inconsistencies in the attitude of the opposition were notable last Saturday during the National Salvation Front's conference to determine its position after the dialogue meeting [which it boycotted]. Some supported moving forward in imposing their own vision that defies actual legitimacy in the country, while others were convinced that a major part of the problem had already vanished and hence they tried to narrow the gap. From all that was said in this conference I listened most closely to Dr Osama Al-Ghazaly when he said, with unmatched courage and sincerity, that the issue was not about the declaration or the constitution, and "this is a revolution to overthrow the rule of the FJP just as the first revolution overthrew [Mubarak's] NDP!” So it all boils down to the fact that this is not rational political opposition as much as a battle of existence or exclusion!
This is my major fear and concern: that our differences, no matter how deep they go, can end up in division. That political competition can end up with something like, “if you’re not with us you’re against us!” For this particular reason I indicated repeatedly that we need to agree on some rules between all competitors in the political arena. If we are talking about a democratic framework that everyone has agreed to follow starting with the parliamentary elections and ending up with the presidential elections, then we have to know that this framework has guidelines that govern everyone and standards to which all must resort. These standards will surely criminalise surrounding the presidential palace and besieging the Constitutional Court. These standards will not allow burning the headquarters of political parties and will not give citizens the power to detain other citizens or interrogate them or possibly even sentence them as well!
Short link: