Our problem with ‘the president’s promise’

Yes, we do have a problem with President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi’s latest “promise,” not to say most of his promises.

By this “promise,” I mean what His Excellency saw fit to say in his address a few days ago at the 44th Cultural Symposium of the Armed Forces, where he made a weighty pledge: “The state has a constitution that we agreed upon, and no one will touch it.” He repeated the phrase more than once, warning against “rumors and attempts to toy with Egyptians’ minds”. It was an unmistakable allusion to the welter of fears and signals that have recently hardened into a belief that those in power mean to replay the game of amending the constitution, so that a plan to extend the president’s current term, due to end in 2030, can go through.

So the promise made a few days ago, that there would be no amendment and no new games played with the text, meant in plain terms that the presidential term would not be extended. That ought to be cause for unreserved joy, since it heralds the first real application of a fundamental principle of our constitution, as of every constitution in the democratic world: the peaceful rotation of power.

Yet, regrettably, a long history of promises and pledges that were never kept stands between us and such celebration. Quite often, the exact opposite came to pass.

A new promise to be added to the old

To take just a few examples, in November 2017 we received a promise to abide by the constitutional provision capping presidential terms at four years, renewable only once. In 2019, however, the constitution was amended and substantive changes were introduced, chief among them to the articles governing presidential terms. A single term became six years, and the sitting president was granted an exception that stretched the term he was then serving by two further years. He then ran in the next election and began a new second term, which is set to end in 2030.

These are the facts of history that now keep us from rejoicing over the president’s latest promise, and leave us doubting that it will ever travel from kind words to practical execution.

Beyond the historical record, the promise is also wrapped in ambiguity. The president followed it with vague remarks outlining rules and criteria for selecting the next president of the republic. Are the proposed requirements, which include age, academic degrees, and courses at the military academy, merely personal recommendations, or will they become legal or constitutional rules?

Constitutions are, of course, documents of great gravity. But their provisions are neither sacred nor handed down by the Lord of the Worlds. They are human handiwork, and remain open to amendment for the better when there is real need. By the same token, they must not become playthings, tailored to the measure and interests of particular individuals or groups. Any revision must proceed with the utmost caution, lest it touch the supreme constitutional principles and values, foremost among them the peaceful, democratic rotation of power.

What I have just said is perhaps a pre-emptive reply to an argument that is routinely and flippantly brandished in our faces by people I will not describe as they deserve.

Necessary steps

And now... what is to be done about this momentous presidential promise? 

The question has two parts. First, what must the president and his regime do to dispel the strong doubts that keep most of society from taking the promise seriously, and how can it be moved swiftly from the realm of talk to the ground of reality? Second, what are we citizens to do from now until the material facts confirm that “the promise is true”?

The duties of the authorities are many, but they begin with a few necessary and urgent steps.

First, “clearing out” the prisons of thousands of prisoners of conscience who expressed their opinions peacefully, without the slightest hint of violence. Their continued detention remains an appalling wound, and their immediate release is the very first proof of sincerity and good faith.

Second, taking serious steps that signal the removal of the dreadful walls and restrictions now imposed on the public sphere, and releasing all popular organizations, syndicates, associations, and political parties included, from the “prisons” of their own headquarters, so that they can operate freely in society. Perhaps then the parties in particular might find, in the few years left before the presidential election, qualified candidates to compete for the office.

Third, and in parallel, dismantling the de facto and formal confiscation and nationalization of newspapers and the media, and freeing every means of expression from the heavy shackles currently placed on it.

Fourth, ending at once, and without delay, the reckless, ruinous economic policies that have spread misery and want through the whole of society, and so, at the very least, holding the terrible poverty they have produced at its present appalling level, without letting it rise further.

That is what the regime must do, and urgently, if it wants the promise to be believed. As for us, what do we do until this either happens or does not? Do we state our strong doubts openly? Do we stay silent, as if nothing had happened? Or... what?

My view, and God knows best, is that we should swallow our doubts for a while, press insistently for the duties I have listed to be carried out, and then check whether the president’s promise holds or not. After that, we will cross that bridge when we come to it.