Faced with an ever-growing backlash over last week’s power grab, Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi struggled to defend his edict, insisting that the move was “temporary” and not intended to centralize power in his hands.
Rather, in a new statement Mursi insisted that the move was meant to limit the power of the judiciary, and was primarily aimed at avoiding the “politicization” of the court system while keeping them from ousting the committee penning the new constitution.
Yet the edict went well beyond protecting the committee, claiming unilateral power for the president to do anything he deems necessary and insisting the court can’t even theoretically review anything he does. To the extent it renders the court totally powerless it would seem to limit interest in its politicization.
Making the move temporary does seem to be a key part of the edict, and assuming it remains temporary it may placate some critics. The edict only sought to define presidential power until the new constitution is written, with the assumption that the constitution itself will define them afterwards.
“Temporary” measures in the Middle East have a tendency to last for decades, however, as with the “emergency law” in place in Egypt before the revolution, which granted Mursi’s predecessor Hosni Mubarak similar unchecked power. The longer it takes to get a constitution in place, the more Egyptians are likely to bristle at the power Mursi is now claiming for himself.
This is the third article by Jason Ditz on this issue and not once has he mentioned that all the corrupt judges in Egypt were hand-picked by a most corrupt Mubarak. This is reporting opinion, not reporting the news.
Yep, very important point. The entire Egyptian was also constitution was written under dictators. If Morsi over-rules the judges and then has an election for members of a constitutional convention to draft a new constitution, or , say , gets parlaiment to draft a new constitution – and after either holds a referendum on the new constitution and gets a majority vote in favour, then accepts the limits on the power of the President in the new constitution, this would mean increased democracy, not another dictatorship.
Mubarak was the president of Egypt for nearly 30 years. In that time there was born a system of tyranny, which can't and won't be undone with the overthrow and prosecution of Mubarak. That system is still very much intact, perhaps its dormant, but still very much there.
So when Mursi explains he needs to do this in order cleanse Egypt of remnants Mubarak's system, which is hindering progress. I'd give Mursi a shot.
Those protesting are naive if they think with Mubarak gone, his thugs have left too.
morsi sounds like he wants to have the same powers as the u.s. pres
It is true that the judges are Mubarak picks and abusive of democracy and reform. It is true that much in Mubarak's tyrannical system still needs to be dismantled. It is true that Mursi needs to prevent those judges and other Mubarak holdouts from ruining things.
However, Mursi forgot that nobody can trust a new leader not do do what Mubarak did. "Trust me" can not be enough. He needs to revise this to write in safeguards. Those need to be agreed upon in advance by key groups who have every right to distrust any new leader's dictatorial proclivities. Morsi would feel the same way about any other president.
Let Reagan be Reagan the Repubs said … and moew or less he was allowed to do most of his agenda….. And That was an election NOT a revolution…….. So Let Mursi be Mursi ……… Get RID of the Mubarak judges……. How many British judges did Washington keep in 1776….??? NONE..!!!!
the main problem is egypt's inability to feed itself. whatever permutations of "just trying to make it work" will all swing and sway being influenced by the dominant issue du jour. the u.s. wheat is a powerful leverage device that can influence political direction.