As the most populous country in the Middle East this vote could determine the direction of the region and the legacy of the Arab Spring. There is a lot to worry about in this Constitution about the powers of the presidency and the influence of Sharia law but establishing a term limited office for the president would be revolutionary for the region. http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...-it-mean-for-the-future?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=4 Egypt votes on its constitution: What's at stake and what does it mean for the future? CAIRO -- On Saturday, millions of Egyptians are expected to vote in the first round of a national referendum to determine whether the country adapts a new and controversial constitution. The voting will take place over two days, Dec. 15 and Dec. 22. Ten out of the country's 27 governorates, comprising 26 million voters, will be allowed to vote on Saturday. The remaining 17 governorates and their 25 million voters will be allowed to vote the following Saturday. Seven thousand judges will supervise the more than 6,000 polling stations on each voting day. The government was required to split the voting over two days because thousands of other judges boycotted supervising the referendum. Officials say voting will also be supervised by observers from civil society, human rights organizations and foreign and domestic media. The U.S.-based Carter Center, however, says it was not able to send an observer to witness the voting process because the regulations required by the Egyptian government were not clarified ahead of the vote. Why does the referendum matter to Egypt, the region and the world? If approved, the referendum would pave the way for a new social contract between the Egyptian state and its citizens. It would replace Egypt's 1971 constitution that had been amended by previous Egyptian presidents to bolster the authoritarian rule that devastated citizens' individual rights. Some, however, say the draft constitution changes nothing to curb the powers of the state, and instead opens the door for Shariah law to be strictly imposed. Others say this constitution is groundbreaking because it curbs the powers of the president, limiting his time in office to two terms and upholding the spirit of the 2011 revolution. Egypt is the largest country in the Arab world, with a population of more than 80 million and great clout over the region. At the same time, Egypt is a vital U.S. ally. The Suez Canal, one of the world's most strategic waterways that connects Asia and East Africa to Europe, lies in Egypt, a country that is also essential to regional stability and is one of only two Arab countries that has a peace treaty with Israel. Here's what is at stake in the referendum and what Egypt's draft constitution says about some of the most pressing issues facing the country: On Islamic law and the role of religion Egypt's draft constitution states that Islam is the official religion of the state. Supporters of the constitution say the draft allows for the freedom of religion. Article 43 states: "The State shall guarantee the freedom to practice religious rites and to establish places of worship for the divine religions." Supporters also argue that for the first time, cannons for Christians and Jews will serve as the principals for their personal laws. Opponents of the constitution say the document curbs the rights of religious minorities, including believers of non-monotheistic religions, because it states that the "principles of Shariah Law are the principal source of legislation." The constitution then proceeds to narrowly define Shariah law as the exclusive interpretation of religious scholars belonging to Al Azhar University, the center of religious and academic learning for Sunnis in the Islamic world. Opponents are also worried about excerpts such as Article 11, which states: "The State shall safeguard ethics, public morality and public order and foster a high level of education and of religious and patriotic values." Critics say that opens the door for a religious take over of civil society and social affairs. On the role of the military The proposed constitution has not changed much in terms of the military's role and function in society. The constitution preserves the role of the Minister of Defense as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and maintains that the position be filled from within the institution's officer ranks. As such, Egypt's military is headed by a military officer, rather than a civilian. Critics warn this will allow the military to remain powerful and shielded from civilian oversight. The president is the supreme commander of the armed forces, but he heads the National Defense Council. The military's budget remains a state secret and there are no stipulations to force the military to disclose its vast economic empire. Perhaps most troubling, critics say, is that the military would still be allowed to try civilians in military trials. On the role of the president Unlike previous presidents who served for decades at a time, Article 133 in the proposed constitution stipulates that the president will serve for a four-year term with a limit of two terms. Critics contend the new draft constitution preserves "dictatorial powers" for the president, including the ability to appoint judges. The president is also not required by the constitution to appoint a vice-president, which makes the issue of succession somewhat vague. The new draft also prohibits the president from holding any "partisan position" for the duration of the presidency, which supporters say means that once an individual is elected, he must resign from any political party they belonged to. On women In the preamble, the draft constitution states that, "equality and equal opportunities are established for all citizens, men and women, without discrimination or nepotism or preferential treatment, in both rights and duties." Supporters of the constitution say the draft gives women new benefits, including support from the state for "widows and breadwinners" and will "ensure maternal and child health services free of charge." Critics, however, contend that women's rights are too narrowly defined within the framework of religion and family affairs. They also argue that the strict interpretation of Islamic law could pave the way for limiting the rights of women. Other issues stipulated in the draft constitution have also polarized the country, including articles that deal with the freedoms of speech, association and the media. Supporters and opponents of the constitution have launched massive public awareness campaigns to persuade voters, but come Saturday, it will be the people who will have the final say.
I am pretty sure they are there. In the article I posted it says: [rquoter]Officials say voting will also be supervised by observers from civil society, human rights organizations and foreign and domestic media. [/rquoter]
Mursi and his crew of criminals called "Muslim Brotherhood" are leading Egypt back into the dark ages.
That's their choice, if they want to go back to live like stone age people, more power to them. Democracy was never about the best government. It is to prevent the worst government because hopefully majority of the people would have enough sense to make good decisions. However, if majority of the population(or super majority in countries like US) want to make bad decisions, nothing can stop them.
A theocracy will always be damaging to a nation and to the people of that nation. Some may have enough money/natural resources to smooth over the problems, but I don't think that's the case in Egypt.
In which country does money/natural resources to smooth over these specific problems? Unless you meant cover up rather than smooth over.
Doesn't matter. Its not my place to tell them who to vote for. Like a poster in this thread said earlier, if they want to vote themselves into the stone age and take a step back from forward progress then go ahead. Ironic how they use their one and only power to vote, to vote themselves into religious enslavement where they will have little to no say.
Right.. Let me rephrase: Out of the list of candidates, who could they have voted for who would not try to seize power and impose their own party's beliefs on everyone else in a theocratic manner? This is interesting. IIRC you are one of the "Obama's better than the other guy" crowd. Now that Egyptians don't want any of the guys (which is the right position to take), you are saying that they are to blame for "voting themselves into a theocracy". This out of an election where 10 candidates were arbitrarily dismissed, voter turnout was obscenely and intentionally low and second place went to Mubarak's right hand man.
I'm sorry. Is Obama an ultra-religious, power hungry, theocratic dictator? Comparing those two situations is just ludicrous.
