The drafting of the 1923 constitution, prepared by a committee of 30 people, took place between 11 April and 26 October, 1922, and involved extensive discussions over 72 sessions.

These were divided between the General Principles Committee, which completed the preparation of the constitutional principles in 18 sessions, and the General Constitution Committee (30 members), which finalised the study of the principles and formulated the draft constitution and electoral law in 54 sessions.

Despite the absence of the National Movement Party delegation from the Constitution Committee’s work, as it wanted to see a national constitutional convention draft the constitution instead of a government committee, it nevertheless exerted influence by pressuring discussions within the committee through various public means. Despite the committee’s governmental nature, the sessions were filled with engaging legal debates, as noted by historian Abdel-Azim Ramadan.

The discussions reflected a struggle between two factions: the first being the democratic faction comprising supporters of prime minister Abdel-Khalek Tharwat Pasha, and the second being the autocratic faction, comprising supporters of King Fouad. The debates occurred during the sessions of both the General Principles and the Constitution Committees.

Some discussions revolved around certain issues, particularly the representation of minorities on 25 August 1922. This topic has received significant attention since, notably in historian Tarek Al-Bishri’s comprehensive work “Muslims and Copts within the National Community.”

Another topic in the discussions was the very nature of the constitution. During the first session on 11 April 1922, for example, Abdel-Latif Al-Makbati Pasha said that “the current constitution is a grant from His Majesty the King, but I assert that what we have now is a result of the nation’s struggle, and the sovereignty of the nation should be clearly stated in the constitution.”

He emphasised the importance of national sovereignty. At the same time, Tawfik Dos Pasha added that “it is undeniable that it is our duty to present a constitution that embodies the full meaning of national sovereignty and the latest constitutional principles and principles of public law.”

Hussein Rushdi Pasha drew attention to the implementation of national sovereignty and the effectiveness of constitutional principles on the ground, with the citizen body as the constitution’s point of reference. “I understand that the term ‘national sovereignty’ is a purely theoretical matter, and what matters is its impact on the constitutional texts and its practical application through ministerial responsibility and the nation’s right to amend the constitution through its parliamentary councils,” he said. He added that the constitution should include an article requiring the king to take an oath to uphold it.

Among the numerous foundational discussions that occurred in the Constitutional Committee, the tenth session held on 15 June 1922 discussed principles relating to the relationship between the two legislative chambers, the House of Representatives and the Senate, and between the legislative authority represented by the House of Representatives and the executive authority.

Alaa Maher Pasha commented that “when the legislative authority is unified, it benefits from great advantages such as working together and faster achievements. However, experience has shown that it is not immune to errors. There should therefore be two chambers of parliament in order to prevent potential problems.”

The idea of a second house of parliament, the Senate, came up to avoid such issues. If the House of Representatives took a certain stance, the Senate would act as a check on it. In the view of Alaa Maher Pasha, having both chambers work independently was essential, but cooperation was also necessary, and such collaboration would not be achievable in cases where conflicts persisted. This led to the idea of instituting the Senate.

Abdel-Hamid Mustafa Pasha supported a bicameral system based on the experiences of other countries, which had demonstrated that having a single house of parliament could lead to problems. Thus, the consensus was that the main reason for having two chambers was to address potential mistakes.

The proposed constitutional principles and articles of the constitution were scrutinised, including topics such as the separation of powers, freedom of belief and religious practice, the procedure to dissolve the legislative authority, the limits of the king’s authority, the administration of religious endowments, and the electoral laws.

Ultimately, in the drafting of the new constitution the Egyptian people benefited from an experience that showcased the high level of political and civic sophistication in the modern Egyptian state, reflecting the profound constitutional understanding of the time. However, at the same time there was a lack in fully grasping the importance of the nation’s economic and social components.

* A version of this article appears in print in the 10 August, 2023 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly