Should the possibility of a complementary constitutional declaration, floated this week, cause concern as the military prepare to return to the barracks? Amira Howeidy ponders Almost a week ahead of the presidential elections (23 and 24 May) the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) conveyed a message to several political parties: a complementary constitutional declaration needs to be issued to specify the powers of the elected president and parliament and regulate the relationship between the two. The messenger was a political party close to the SCAF, and it was immediately understood what the message was really about: somewhere in its articles the constitutional declaration would seek to secure the military's interests after a full transfer of power on 30 June. It's been 15 months since SCAF became Egypt's de facto ruler. Citing "revolutionary legitimacy", the military formed a committee to amend several articles of the 1971 constitution to allow for free and fair parliamentary and presidential elections and a transfer of power. The changes were approved in a public referendum and a constitutional declaration was issued on 30 March 2011 to serve as a constitutional framework for the interim period until a new constitution is in place. SCAF and a number of political parties now say this set up needs to be revisited: the existing constitutional declaration is "porous" say some, including the Nour Party, the second largest bloc in parliament. According to Nour Party leader Emad Abdel-Ghafour, SCAF has addressed political forces on the issue "and it is better that we reach a consensus together rather than leave it up to the military to impose what it wants". A series of conflicting statements in recent days, quoting "military sources", has revealed confusion in approaches to the issue. In Tuesday's issue of Al-Shorouk SCAF member Mamdouh Shahin said the new declaration wouldn't be issued immediately and the president's powers "are already" detailed in the existing constitutional declaration. Article 56 of the March constitutional declaration gives SCAF the right to appoint the prime minister and cabinet, call for emergency meetings of parliament, issue and object to laws, appoint or lay off civilian and military employees, represent the state and sign international agreements, grant amnesties or reduce sentences. The constitutional declaration stipulates that these same powers shall be granted to the elected president. Article 33 stipulates that the People's Assembly shall determine policy, the state budget and oversee the executive authority. The constitutional declaration does not give parliament the right to dismiss the government through a vote of no confidence. Nor does it grant the president the right to dissolve parliament. It simply maintains the status quo for an interim period, until a new constitution can be drafted and then approved by public referendum. Spokesmen from the Wafd Party -- which supports a complementary constitutional declaration -- have been quoted in the press saying three articles have been put up for discussion. They give the elected president the right to dissolve parliament; would allow the People's Assembly to dismiss the government and grant the Armed Forces full control of military affairs, including the right to revise laws that concern it prior to their approval by the People's Assembly. The timing of the proposal -- only days ahead of the presidential elections -- reflects SCAF's anxiety over the fate of military privileges under a democracy. If a civilian is elected president it will be the first time since 1952 that a member of the military establishment is not at Egypt's helm. Not only does SCAF face the possibility that some of its members could be prosecuted for the death of scores of protesters during the interim period, it also risks losing the control it currently enjoys over swathes of the Egyptian economy. This isn't the first time SCAF has attempted to secure special status for the military in the yet to be drafted constitution. From July 2011 to August the generals attempted to market -- via then deputy prime minister Ali El-Selmi _ a batch of "inviolable constitutional principles". On the surface the principles responded to the demands of secular political parties keen to guarantee the civilian nature of any new constitution. Sceptics warned its real aim was to secure the military's influence within any new political dispensation. Ten days before parliamentary elections last November, when SCAF had been in power for nine months and was reluctant to commit to a date for holding presidential elections, El-Selmi presented political parties with a document that included two articles placing the Armed Forces beyond the control of both parliament and president. The Muslim Brotherhood objected to the proposal and took to the streets in massive demonstrations on 17 November. While the Brothers ended the protest after conveying their message, activists began a sit-in which was subsequently attacked by security forces. Forty-two protesters were killed and 3,000 injured in the ensuing clashes. As the situation spiralled out of control El-Selmi was forced to withdraw his document and SCAF commander Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi set a date for the presidential elections. At the time he insisted the position of the Armed Forces in the new constitution would be no different from the 1971 constitution. It's unlikely such a scenario will be repeated. It's only a matter of days, or weeks -- depending on whether there are run-offs in mid-June -- before a president is elected. But it's clear that SCAF feels compelled to try and secure a deal, under the pretext of a complementary constitutional declaration, guaranteeing its members are not held legally accountable for their actions. But is a constitutional annex actually constitutional? No, says Tarek El-Beshry, the ex-judge who presided over the committee that drafted the constitutional amendments in March 2011. SCAF, he argues, has no right to issue a constitutional declaration now that an elected parliament is exercising its legislative role. Nor does SCAF have the authority to amend the constitutional declaration. "If SCAF couldn't issue one law after the formation of parliament, it makes no sense at all for it to have the power to issue constitutional rulings that are above the law," he wrote in a widely read article published on Monday. Amending the constitutional declaration, insists El-Beshry, is "a legislative impossibility". A meeting on Tuesday between political parties to discuss the issue failed to materialise. It was postponed for the second time in a row. But while everyone is busy with elections and over the next few days, it is only a matter of time before the issue is back on the table. SCAF officially hands over power on 30 June. In the weeks till then it will push for a solution. It might help SCAF that the Nour Party has come out in favour of amending the constitutional declaration, though as commentators point out its motives for doing so are likely to be based on party political calculations. Any amendments will pose a challenge for the Muslim Brotherhood which is categorically against changes. "There's no need for it and we won't approve it," Ali Beshr, a member of the Brotherhood's Guidance Bureau, told Al-Ahram Weekly. Numerous discussions have already been held on the status of the Armed Forces and there is a consensus that Egypt's national security is a priority. "We are in agreement that the military's budget will not be made public and will be discussed privately," says Beshr. "SCAF has no reason to worry." But no Brotherhood leader is willing to speak on the issue that matters: will SCAF leaders be held accountable for the many lives that were lost when they were in charge? It's an issue that will continue to haunt the various players in the last days of the interim period.
