Egypt is currently the scene of political controversy. Whereas the ruling National Democratic Party believes the Constitutional amendments it has proposed would improve the country's political conditions, opposition parties and independents consider them a setback to democracy. The opposition bases its view on the changes introduced to Article 88 relating to the judicial supervision of election and Article 179 pertaining to the anti-terror law expected to replace the Emergency Law.

While some aspects of opposition arguments may reasonable, I would like to note that had it not been for President Mubarak's decree in 2005 to amend Article 76 by introducing free and direct ballot in a multi-candidate presidential election, we would have never seen such vitality in the country's political life. Ours being a newly-born experiment, it depends mostly on a process of trial and error. Another amendment to Article 76 as part of a package of 34 other articles would set our path on the right course. These amendments have reasserted the principle of citizenship and banned all religiously-based political parties. Some have opposed these amendments, including the principle of citizenship, a stance that is in breach of the essence of equality and that contradicts respect of human rights.

MPs from the banned Muslim Brotherhood have opposed a ban on political passed based on religion. Their rationale: it prevents the group from forming a political party. Meanwhile, other MPs have called for abolishing Article 2, which stipulates "Islam is the religion of the state and Arabic its official language"; and that "Islamic jurisprudence is the principal source of legislation."

In my view the amendments are balanced and seek, besides ensuring the security and stability of our country, to promote democracy Egypt-style. What is important is for us to learn to manage our differences according to the rules of democracy.

Ibrahim Nafei
Al-Ahram
Saturday, March24, 2007