Does the participation of the Muslim Brotherhood in the elections violate the constitution, asks Mohamed Sid-Ahmed Egypt's latest parliamentary elections have been an eye-opener in more ways than one, perhaps most of all in that they have highlighted a serious flaw in the composition of the People's Assembly. The assembly includes three categories of deputies: those belonging to political parties, those not belonging to political parties who are known as independents and, finally, those who are not allowed to form a party but are nevertheless allowed to serve as deputies, namely, members of the banned Muslim Brotherhood organisation. Is this not a form of discrimination, a case of favouring some Egyptian citizens over others, and, hence, of violating the constitution? The flawed composition of the assembly would have had a limited impact on the political scene if there were only a few deputies falling in the third category, but that is far from being the case. Members of the Muslim Brotherhood who have successfully contested seats in parliament have reached record numbers, far outstripping other opposition deputies who are not members of the outlawed organisation. When it comes to constitutional rights, some Egyptians are clearly more equal than others, with a not inconsiderable group of citizens deprived of the right enjoyed by their compatriots to belong to and elect the party of their choice. Twice in the past, both times in the Hosni Mubarak era, parliament was dissolved on the ground that its composition was unconstitutional for being the product of two systems of voting, the list system and the single vote system, carried out concomitantly. The court considered this dual voting process to be discriminatory for making a distinction between the rights of citizens. But the dissolution of parliament did not affect the laws it had passed during its brief existence, which remained in force despite their promulgation by an unconstitutional legislative assembly. It is no secret that parliamentary elections this time around have been the most contentious ever. There have been wide-scale arrests involving -- according to some sources -- thousands of citizens, many of whom are supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood. This gives an idea of what relations will be like between the NDP and the Muslim Brotherhood in a parliament where the latter will be holding roughly one-third of the seats (the NDP is expected to win just over 300 seats, the MB about 100). According to the Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood Mohamed Mahdi Akef, the incoming parliament is likely to be short-lived given the difficulties it will face trying to function in an atmosphere of mutual hostility. Moreover, according to the amendments introduced to Article 76 of the constitution, independent members of parliament can only run for presidency in the future provided they enjoy the support of at least five per cent of the members of certain institutions, including the People's Assembly and the Shura Council. This provision secures the right of the biggest bloc in parliament, i.e., the ruling party, to determine who can or cannot run, making the prospect of rotation of power more remote than ever. The unprecedented level of violence that marred the final stages of the election process highlights the need for radical changes in the Egyptian electoral system to prevent the same thing from happening in future. Can the violence be explained as the result of the political immaturity of the Egyptian electorate and their inability to act in accordance with the principles of democracy? Or is it due, rather, to the exceptional system imposed on the Muslim Brotherhood? To what extent is it justified to deprive the Brotherhood of the right to establish a party? These are issues that need to be thoroughly debated. The opposite of the religious state is the secular state. The Egyptian system does not satisfy the prerequisites of either. But the distance between the two models is not necessarily unbridgeable. Each can take a variety of forms, and one of those forms could be acceptable to both sides. Does there exist at least one which is not rejected by either? In other words, what should be discarded and what should be retained to achieve the ideal formula tailored to our specific needs? A common error in our part of the world is to identify secularism with atheism, when in fact each deals with an entirely different proposition. Secularism aims at achieving complete equality between citizens when it comes to freedom of belief and conscience, an aim that can be reconciled with the requirements of a religious state. An example worth considering here is the Wassat (Centrist) Party in Egypt, an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, which adopts values that are acceptable in both the religious and secular traditions. However, despite the recent controversy over France's decision to ban headscarves and other religious symbols from government schools, France is still the best example of how secular and religious values can be reconciled. France's status as the universal prototype of a secular tradition dates back to the French Revolution. We in Egypt have first-hand experience of how the French managed to launch their secular message while retaining their religious values. Side by side with their secular educational institutions, the best-known of which is the Mission Laique Française, they have established academically acclaimed religious schools in Egypt like the Jesuites, the Fransiscaines and others from which countless Egyptians have graduated.
