The worst aspect of the irresponsible opposition is that it regards matters with just one eye. Hence it puts matters upside-down and turns a blind eye to half or most of the reality to tarnish the rest of this reality.

And eventually the opposition believes that it has played a role or a message by which it has deceived the public opinion which follows up, observes, records and analyses before it releases the conclusions or reserves it until the appropriate time when the opposition discovers that it has not deceived any one but itself.

Days ago, I, and some of my friends met with a member of this opposition which practices opposition just for the sake of opposition. In fact the talk ran about to-day's subject i.e. the constitutional amendments when our guest put forward three questions which revealed his irresponsible opposition.

The first was: why the constitutional amendments now? , what is the difference between Emergency Law and the law on Combating Terrorism and both are exceptional laws?, this was his second question; the third was about article 88 of the constitution which our friend rejects any amendment to it.

As for the first question the answer was that these amendments according to political observers are the largest & most important constitutional ones in the Egyptian history.

They were not to bear fruits or stand on a solid ground had it not been for the political reforms carried out by President Mubarak throughout the past years for example: the release of the journalists, and politicians in jail, the return of opposition press with a wider scope of freedom, the return of El Wafd party to the political life together with El Tagamu'a Party, relaunching the freedom of founding political parties in accordance with the constitutional & legal safeguards, to multiply their number to an unprecedented figure in the contemporary Egyptian history etc then came the abolishment of State Security Courts, the establishment of the National Council for Human Rights and the amendment to article 76 for the multi-candidate presidential elections.

In short, preparing the launching-pad for the constitutional amendments which required all these years for them to be in conformity and consistent with the political life.

Therefore how could we talk about these amendments prior to these important steps on the path of the constitutional reform? Our opposition partner was mute!!

As for the second question, there is a difference between Emergency Law which was applied after the declaration of the State of Emergency, hence; comes the exceptional aspect of the law on combating terrorism which will come into being after the abolition of the State of Emergency; therefore there will not be any exceptional aspect of the law which will be subject of judicial monitoring. Then where is the similarity between the State of Emergency and the Law on Terrorism? As for the third question on article 88 if left as it is now, it will collide with a dangerous hurdle after several years when the population reaches 80 or 90 millions. And by a simple calculation, the number of judges necessary for the sub-committees would be unconceivable.

Hence what should we do? Leaving the article as it is then make another constitutional amendment after some years?, the constitution would then lose its solemnity as a result of such amendments, changes and replacements? Or should we, being aware of the future, be ready for them now and alienate ourselves far form any unexpected events? Our opposition guest was silent!

Al Akhbar
by Samir Tawfiq
1/3/2007