Egyptian Human Rights Organizations - Essay Example

I. Introduction A. Research into the issue of emergency law in Egypt indicates that its enactment and constant renewal is of primary concern to bothinternational and Egyptian human rights organizations, not to mention legal scholars. While the Egyptian government may argue that emergency law is necessary given the need to maintain security in a climate of political instability, analysis of the claim reveals that emergency laws have mainly been enacted not for the maintenance of security against instability and political radicalism, as represented by Islamic extremists, but by the overriding aim of silencing any form of political dissent or criticism against the government, represented by the President and his hand picked cabinet. B. In brief, and as this paper will hopefully demonstrate, emergency law in Egypt has been unconstitutionally exercised and implemented, not for the purpose of maintaining security and protecting the citizens and society, but as a weapon against that society, the Egyptian citizenry and against the very concept of human rights itself, with the ultimate consequence being the expansion of the powers of the presidency beyond its constitutional limits. II. Historical Background on Emergency Law in Egypt A. In a four part article entitled "The Effect of the Emergency Law on the Human Rights Situation In Egypt: 1992-2002," the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights traces the historical background of emergency law in Egypt throughout the twentieth century. According to the facts offered, the history of emergency laws in Egypt can be traced back to 1914, at which time it was first enacted due to the break out of World War I ("History" ). Significant to mention for purpose of discussion is that one of the laws enacted under the wider emergency law was the Gathering Law 10 of 1914 ("Conclusion"). Noteworthy here is that during this period in history, Egypt was increasingly falling under British political control and World War I was, as it may have been interpreted by Egyptian masses at that time, a war against Britain and her allies by Germany and her allies. This meant that there was an atmosphere of great excitement among the Egyptian population, many of whom supported a British defeat believing that would mean liberation for Egypt. Accordingly, within this politically tense and unstable climate, demonstrations were carried out by Egyptians against the British, their foreign occupiers. Accordingly, emergency laws and the law of gathering which accompanied it, were passed in order to control the growing resentment against Britain and to limit, as much as possible, public demonstrations against it. B. Within this context, it is possible to state that Egypt experienced its first emergency laws at the hands of its enemy and occupier and was explicitly intended to subdue the Egyptian masses, deprive them of the right to demand their freedom and liberation, and limit their ability to fight for this freedom ("Conclusion"). In other words, it was a law passed by an occupier and a colonizer to ensure continued occupation and colonization. C. Now you will explain that the Egyptian people continued to suffer from emergency rule, except for a couple of brief breaks, until the revolution of 1952. In other words, in the pre-revolutionary period and due to the circumstances of occupation, emergency laws were part of Egyptian political climate. III. Emergency Law Under Nasser: Post-1952: A. " the emergency law that the regime inherited in 1952 had two chief features: it gave the government very strong powers (for instance, verdicts of military courts could not be appealed but were submitted to the military governor for approval), and it could be portrayed as a creation of the British" (Brown 82-83). B. With a new government in place, many Egyptian intellectuals and nationalist emphasized the second feature of the emergency law. Unfortunately, the Nasser regime preferred to focus on the first feature, insofar as it gave them the power to deal effectively with all those elements which they perceived as a threat to their power and stability, further giving them the power to reorganize both society and politics according to what they saw fit, without fear of public demonstrations and other expressions of mass anger. C. An interesting fact on the use of the emergency law during this period, and which will also serve to prove its use as a weapon against the Egyptian people and an effective means for silencing their criticisms, is that it was not used even once throughout the Presidency of Mohammed Naguib. It was not even used when the revolution first broke out and when one would have assumed that it was needed the most. The reason for this, as Brown explains, is that Mohammed Naguib enjoyed an incredible level of support among the Egyptian masses and the Egyptian army (83). As he writes: "Urabi, Mustafa Kamel, and Sad Zaghlul all led without the benefit of martial law because they had broad political support. Since Najib had a similar level of support, martial law was not necessary" (83). However, Naguib only governed Egypt for a short period of time and when Nasser assumed control, martial law was put in place. D. The fact that Naguib could govern Egypt without the need for martial law and, for the most part, Nasser could not afford to is the fact that many Egyptian would find interesting. As far as many of us were informed by our Arabic history text books in school, Gamal Abdel Nasser had an unequalled level of mass popularity, enjoying the complete support of the majority of the Egyptian masses. Of course, these books also state that he had his enemies, such as the communists and the Muslim Brotherhood but, as is often stated, these two groups were more accurately the enemies of the masses and the fact that Nasser opposed them was out of his concern for the welfare of the country and its people. However, the history of the use of emergency law reveals a very different picture, demonstrating that Nasser retained control through his use of the emergency law rather than because he had the complete full hearted support of the majority of the Egyptians (Brown 83). E. A brief analysis of the above could lead one to reasonably conclude that the from 1914 until the death of Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1971, emergency law had become an established part of the country's political characteristics. A law that is supposedly used for the benefit of the masses, for the protection of national security and for the prevention of any serious harm coming to society, from the very first time it was used, the emergency law in Egypt became an instrument for the oppression of the masses. It did not just silence serious political criticisms that needed to be made in order to motivate change or even stop, or at the least slow down, rising corruption and increasing dictatorship, the emergency law effectively silenced even the minimum level of criticism, denying the masses the right to express their opinion or feelings on practically all issues of importance to them. In other words, the emergency law became an instrument for the promotion of dictatorship, the practice of human rights abuses and the suppression of the Egyptian people. These claims will be explained and supported in greater detail in the following discussions of the current emergency law and the human rights abuses that were committed through its use as an excuse. Hopefully, this will provide the required support for the main argument concerning the transformation of the emergency law into a weapon against, rather than an instrument for the protection of, the Egyptian people. IV. The Current Emergency Law and the Constitution A. Ever since the law of 1958, the Egyptian president has enjoyed the authority to enact the emergency law as he sees appropriate. In a state of emergency, the liberties of the masses are severely jeopardized if not undermined altogether. As explained by the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights: "Upon declaration of a state of emergency, Article 3 provides that the President may take appropriate measures to maintain security and public order' through imposing restrictions on individuals' freedom to meet, travel and reside in particular places. Further, the Emergency Law provides for wide powers of arrest, detention and search, regardless of the protective provisions in the Criminal Procedures Code" ("The History"). B. As much as one may personally reject these provisions and procedures as a violation of human rights, the fact is that one can comprehend that they may be necessary for limited periods of time in cases of national security concerns. For example, in a situation where a country is threatened with war, or is actually involved in a war, the enacting of emergency law is understandable. In fact, one can go beyond that and state that in cases of there being a real potential threat, as occurred in Egypt several times at the hands of the Islamic terrorist groups, the enacting of emergency law is also understandable. In cases like these, one can assume that the powers granted to a government by emergency law will enable more accurately the identifying of those involved in the threat and their arrest, hopefully eliminating their danger to society and causing the emergency law to be lifted. Unfortunately, the use of the emergency law in Egypt is no longer really limited to cases of national emergency or security threats at all. As mentioned in "Politics of Egypt," the Egyptian masses have been subjected to life under a state of emergency for almost four decades, "except for an 18-month break in 1981" ("The Politics of Egypt"). C. In case there is any suspicion that the emergency law and its placement on the country for almost half a century is not a means by which to undermine the Constitution of Egypt, one needs to refer to certain relevant articles in this document. These are provided in Human Rights and Democracy, The Role of the Supreme Constitutional Court in Egypt: 1. Whereas the emergency law enables "wide powers of arrest, detention and search, regardless of the protective provisions in the Criminal Procedures Code" ("The History") article 41 of the Constitution states that "no person may be arrested, inspected, detained or have his freedom restricted in any way except by an order necessitated by investigations and the preservations of public security" (Boyle and Sherif 293). 2. Whereas the emergency law enables limiting the freedom of people to "reside in particular places," ("The History") article 41 of the Egyptian Constitution. States that "no person may have his freedom restricted in any way" (Boyle and Sherif 293). 3. Whereas the emergency law enables search without search warrant, ("The History") article 44 of the Egyptian Constitution states that "Homes shall have their sanctity and they may not be entered or inspected except by a causal judicial warrant as prescribed by the law" (Boyle and Sherif 294). 4. Whereas the emergency law limits the freedom of the press, article 48 of the constitution states that "Liberty of the press, printing, publication and mass media shall be guaranteed. Censorship on newspapers shall be forbidden as well as notifying, suspending, or canceling them by administrative methods" (294). 5. Whereas the emergency law limits the freedom of people to state their opinions and express themselves, article 47 of the Constitution states that "freedom of opinion shall be guaranteed. Every individual shall have the right to express his opinion and to publicize it " (294). D. Comparisons between the emergency law and the constitution basically illustrates that the one is in direct contradiction with the other as regards the rights and the freedoms of the citizens of the country. Read More