Egypt Gets a New Constitution

Mohammed Morsi signed Egypt’s new Sharia-based Constitution into law earlier today after a two round vote where the document passed by 63.8 percent according to the election authority. Protests against the draft constitution began before it was even released, after Morsi seized judicial powers in preparation for a new constitution. Protests started immediately, with the proposal of the new constitution just a week later spurring more protest. The opposition mulled a boycott of the constitutional vote before throwing their weight behind a “no” vote.

And while the government blamed unrest on a “small but powerful minority” supporters of the opposition saw it the other way around. “70 percent of the Egyptian people are ignorant and illiterate, and the 70 percent now control the 30 percent of the population who are educated,” one female voter told euronews in Egypt. Like others, she accused the government of fraud in the elections. The results represent a third straight electoral win for the Muslim Brotherhood since the fall of Hosni Mubarak in 2011. The Muslim Brotherhood had long been banned in Egypt, helping it become the only real opposition force in Egypt despite losses in elections that came in the twilight of the Mubarak era. Though the Muslim Brotherhood initially stayed away from the protests that would lead to Mubarak’s toppling, when it was clear Mubarak’s days were numbered, it attached itself to the moment, identifying as the major recipient of the Mubarak regime’s brutality. Despite this, wrote Morsi in 2011, the revolution was Egypt’s, not the Muslim Brotherhood’s. “The Muslim Brotherhood are not seeking power,” Morsi clarified just two days later. Less than a year and a half later he had been elected president. It’s been a lot of power-seeking since.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Vanguardist party is vanguardist.

    I hope Egypt enjoyed their one vote, one man, one time!

  • R C Dean||

    Another triumph for our Obama and Hillary, our current and future Presidents!

  • JeremyR||

    I don't see what Obama or Hillary can do - the majority of people in Egypt, or really even the MidEast, want Islamism and Shariah law

    Same thing basically happened in Turkey

  • wareagle||

    Obama and Hillary greased the skids for this, between their insistence that "Mubarak must go" and their bullshit Arab Spring lullaby to the low-information crowd.

  • R C Dean||

    Clicked too soon.

    Seriously, if Obama really was an Islamist Manchurian candidate, could have have done much more to advance the cause of radical Islam? Let's go to the tape:

    (1) Non-radical Islamist regime overthrown in Libya, radicals increasingly wield power.

    (2) Non-radical Islamist regime overthrown in Egypt, radicals now rule the country.

    (3) Non-radical Islamist regime soon to be overthrown in Syria, radical militias poised to prevail in ensuing civil war.

    (4) Radical Islamist regime in Iran seeking nuclear weapons has its progress slowed not at all.

    (5) "Secular" regime in Iraq cozies up to radical Islamist regime in Iran.

    (6) Islamist terror organizations grip on "Palestine" and Lebanon no weaker, probably stronger.

    That's off the top of my head. Is there any doubt that radical Islamists are much better off now than they were four years ago?

  • ||

    "... if Obama really was an Islamist Manchurian candidate, could have have done much more to advance the cause of radical Islam?"

    What is stunning to me is how teflon coated he is. None of the shit he does sticks to him. Even if the MB ends up blowing up the pyramids ( not all that unlikely ) it would be blamed on Bush and the Republicans and he would bear no responsibility for it at all.

  • iggy||

    7) Relatively Democratic Mali is invaded by cast off radical extremists from the Libyan rebellion.

  • Hyperion||

    Well, who else is going to keep the completely worthless MSM afloat if not for a guy that they constantly give a free pass to?

  • RyanXXX||

    Uh, nor should he? What would you suggest he do to stop that from happening, Suthenboy? Station Marines around the Pyramids and Sphynx?

  • CatoTheElder||

    Well, his drone attacks are stirring up ant hills in Yemen and hornets' nests in Pakistan as well.

  • RyanXXX||

    You sound like a neocon. #4 isn't even really a "problem", #5 actually is Bush's fault (I realize that phrase is a joke around here but sometimes it is actually true) and #6 implies you think he should be going about weakening Islamists in Palestine and Lebanon.

  • RyanXXX||

    That said, he absolutely is to blame for Libya/Mali and the continuing bloodshed in Syria. And I agree that issuing ultimatums to dictators is not our place. But we never should have been propping up those guys in the first place

  • Ted Levy||

    “70 percent of the Egyptian people are ignorant and illiterate, and the 70 percent now control the 30 percent of the population who are educated,”

    While in America, 85% of the people are ignorant and non-libertarian, and the 85% control the 15% of the population who are educated...

  • R C Dean||

    the 70 percent now control the 30 percent of the population who are educated

    Welcome to democracy, sweetie.

  • Hugh Akston||

    You got it backwards Ted. Libertarians are secretly in control of everything, and we impose our vile wills on an unsuspecting populace. The housing bubble was due to our greed, lagging economic growth and stagnant employment are due to our callousness, and when ObamaCare collapses, it will be due to our unmutuality.

    Who cares that we constitute a mere 5% of the population at best. We have our hands on the levers.

  • Hyperion||

    Well, the Kochtopus, duh.

    Everyone knows that the Kochtopus controls the Libertarians and that we are secretly building an army of evil robot cyborgs to take over the world.

    I don't know why everyone don't just submit to our will now and save themselves getting sent to the gulags after the take over.

  • Sevo||

    "we are secretly building an army of evil robot cyborgs to take over the world."

    Shhh! We meet on the grassy knoll at midnight! Pass it on.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Man I'd hate to live in a country where politicians hoping to appease a thuggish, ignorant majority could strip me of my property and freedoms.

  • CE||

    Makes you wonder what percent of the vote the US Constitution would get if we had a referendum next week on it.

    What percentage for each Amendment in the Bill of Rights?

  • ||

    I'm betting on at least 20 percent against each one. That's millions of our neighbors, our brothers and sisters.

    Of course, that's only because everybody loves freedom when it comes in the form of an all-encompassing, general pronouncement. When it comes to actual tyrannical laws, expect anywhere from 30 to 80 percent to support any given one.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Historians estimate that during the American Revolution, about 1/3 of the population were Patriots, another 1/3 were Loyalists, and 1/3 fence-sat.

  • ||

    "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."

    The problem is we no longer have irate, tireless minorities keen enough to give a fuck. That's heartbreaking.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I dunno. From what I've seen, the "prepper" movement (to use one example) is not only thriving, but growing.

  • PapayaSF||

    Forget Sharia, The New Egyptian Constitution Enshrines Socialism

    National economy shall be organized in accordance with a comprehensive, constant development plan, ensuring the increase of national income, enhancement of standard of living, elimination of poverty and unemployment, increase of work opportunities, and increase of production.
    The development plan shall establish social justice and solidarity, ensure equitable distribution, protect consumer rights, and safeguard the rights of workers, dividing development costs between capital and labor and sharing the revenues justly.
  • R C Dean||

    Well, there you have it. The new constitution ensures economic progress and prosperity. Problem solved.

  • ||

    Holy shit, I think I got a hernia laughing at that.

    They will never learn.

  • AlmightyJB||

    You got a hernia, Krugman got a hard on.

  • wareagle||

    Egyptian. Top. Men.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Egyptian. Top. Men.

    Aren't they called "pharaohs"?

  • wareagle||

    and the country comes full circle.

  • A Serious Man||

    So in 20 years they'll be a libertarian paradise like Somalia, which was also a socialist state before it collapsed in 1991.

  • Sevo||

    ..."ensuring the increase of national income, enhancement of standard of living, elimination of poverty and unemployment, increase of work opportunities, and increase of production."...

    IOWs, the War on Prosperity! I like it; this is one that's bound to work!

  • Brutus||

    This, combined with sharia, guarantees that Egypt will be a hell on Earth in no time.

  • CatoTheElder||

    “70 percent of the Egyptian people are ignorant and illiterate, and the 70 percent now control the 30 percent of the population who are educated”

    That's the nature of democracy everywhere.

  • ||

    Democracy really is a fucking abomination -- rule by the mob. Rights are not subject to scrutiny or abatement.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Well if the Egyptian government pays as much attention to their constitution as ours does than what the big deal. I mean why not offer to give them our constitution. We're not using it.

  • Sevo||

    The US founders did a pretty damn good job, especially considering the time when they established the Constitution. It was a good start, but to take an obvious example, the Bill of Rights suggests to statists that those are the rights granted by the government, rather than some specific unalienable rights singled out for special attention.
    When the issue next comes up, I'd suggest the founders start with the presumption that a government is more or less the maintenance and janitorial service of society and devote the majority of a constitution to stating specifically what a government is allowed to do, rather than specifics of what is it not allowed to do.
    The alternative provides statists too much room to argue that 'since X wasn't forbidden, the government can do that!'
    Once that's established, voting on who sweeps the floors (democracy) is just fine.

  • AlmightyJB||

    The founders did recognize in the Declaration of Independence that we are born with rights (Endowed by our Creator in their vernacular). The government does not grant us rights and does not have the authority to take them away. We have rights because we are human beings whether or not any king or government recognizes them. Our founders stated that they did recognize them. The Constitution has to be read with that same inherent principle because that Declaration was the document that defined the reason for the creation of our nation. The Constitution lays out the framework to institute those ideals set forth in the Declaration.

  • AlmightyJB||

    3rd try to post this. See my comment below webmasters.

  • Sevo||

    AlmightyJB| 12.26.12 @ 9:49PM |#
    The founders did recognize in the Declaration of Independence that we are born with rights (Endowed by our Creator in their vernacular). The government does not grant us rights and does not have the authority to take them away. We have rights because we are human beings whether or not any king or government recognizes them. Our founders stated that they did recognize them. The Constitution has to be read with that same inherent principle because that Declaration was the document that defined the reason for the creation of our nation. The Constitution lays out the framework to institute those ideals set forth in the Declaration."

    Yes they did. What I see as a problem is the attempt to define those "rights", which left statists with the ability to claim: "See! That's what the Constitution grants!"
    Bad move.
    Better:
    We, as free people, assign the government to do:
    1) Enforce contracts agreed upon between individuals,
    2) Protect the population from foreign and domestic thugs,
    2) Built the roads
    3) some minor etc.
    And, BTW, the government has no ability to restrain the activities of the populace absent, oh, an 80% vote to do so which must be passed by the SCOTUS immediately after the vote and then re-confirmed every 6 months thereafter.
    Let's get serious; the power of domestic government to abridge te freedom of the populace is far greater than any foreign threat.

  • waaminn||

    Sounds like some pretty crazy stuff to me dude.

    www.Privacy-OT.tk

  • AlmightyJB||

    Dear Reason. Your website sucks. I cannot tell you how many times I've typed out Replies or Comments just to have them lost completely when I Submit them. I can tell you it happens ALL the freakin' time.

  • RyanXXX||

    Keep digging....

  • The Bearded Hobbit||

    An H&R poster asked this question about the new Constitution in Iraq;

    "Do you suppose their Constitution contains a RKBA?"

    Similar question for Egypt.

    ... Hobbit

  • np||

    Of course everyone gets to their arms, duh. Now maybe if they steal a loaf of bread or commit some capital offense, then those limbs may be in jeopardy.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement