I recently participated in a televised discussion about the future of Egypt’s presidency, following President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi’s announcement that he does not intend to amend the Constitution to extend his presidential term beyond 2030, and that he will abide by the constitutionally \u0928\u093f\u0930\u094d\u0927\u093e\u0930\u093f\u0924 term limit.<\/p>\n
What caught my attention was the extent of the public celebration surrounding this announcement, as though respecting the Constitution had become an exceptional act worthy of celebration, rather than a natural obligation incumbent upon anyone entrusted with public responsibility, foremost among them the President of the Republic.<\/p>\n
I say this without diminishing the importance of the announcement, but rather in recognition of its significance, while expressing my astonishment that compliance with constitutional rules should itself become welcome news. The Constitution is not a gift from the ruler to the people. It is the nation’s social contract, defining the limits of power, safeguarding rights, and guaranteeing the peaceful transfer of authority. It is the reference point to which we turn when we disagree, not merely when we agree.<\/p>\n
Respecting the Constitution should never come as a surprise. It is violating it that should be unthinkable.<\/p>\n
During the discussion, the conversation moved to the President’s proposal to prepare and train qualified individuals capable of assuming the presidency, particularly holders of advanced academic degrees, through a 30-month training program at the Military Academy.<\/p>\n
My response was clear: Preparing future leaders is commendable, and training in state affairs is essential. However, we must not confuse preparing citizens to assume responsibility with requiring them to pass through a particular institution before they are permitted to exercise their constitutional right to run for office.<\/p>\n
Article 141 of the Egyptian Constitution specifies the conditions for running for President of the Republic and refers to the law for additional requirements within its constitutional framework. The existing requirements do not include holding a doctoral degree or completing prior military training.<\/p>\n
There is a fundamental difference between making a voluntary leadership development program available and turning that program into a mandatory gateway to presidential candidacy. In a democratic state, the President is not appointed after passing an examination designed by the incumbent authorities. Rather, the people choose their President through free elections among candidates who meet the constitutional and legal requirements.<\/p>\n
A candidate may be a distinguished academic holding the highest qualifications, a politician whose experience comes from public service, a successful economist, or a community leader with a compelling vision and the ability to persuade others. A PhD is evidence of specialization and research capability, but it is not a certificate of political wisdom, integrity, the ability to manage differences, or the capacity to build national consensus.<\/p>\n
The Military Academy is an institution with an important status and role. However, political life extends far beyond any single institution, whether civilian or military. The state cannot be reduced to one institution, regardless of its importance. The nation belongs to all its citizens.<\/p>\n
Then came a question that opened a much broader discussion than I had anticipated. The interviewer asked me: Would you accept a Christian serving as Egypt’s Prime Minister?<\/p>\n
My answer was simple: Why not?<\/p>\n
I went even further, pointing out that the constitutional requirements for presidential candidacy themselves make no distinction between Muslims and Christians, or between men and women. What matters is fulfilling the constitutional and legal requirements, possessing the necessary qualifications and leadership abilities, and ultimately gaining public acceptance through free and fair elections.<\/p>\n
I was not expressing a religious opinion, nor was I advocating for choosing someone because of their faith or gender. I was discussing a clear constitutional principle: equality in citizenship.<\/p>\n
Yet the reactions that followed the interview surprised me even more than the original question.<\/p>\n
I encountered people confidently asserting that a woman cannot govern Egypt and that a Christian cannot become President of the Republic. Some even cited the Constitution as though it explicitly prohibited such possibilities!<\/p>\n
At that moment, I realized that we are facing more than a mere difference of opinion. We are confronting a deeper problem in understanding the relationship between religion and the state, between citizenship and political authority, and between constitutional provisions and social culture.<\/p>\n
Article 141 of the Egyptian Constitution sets out the requirements for presidential candidacy. These include Egyptian nationality, with both parents being Egyptian; the enjoyment of civil and political rights; completion of military service or a lawful exemption from it; and a minimum age of 40, in addition to other conditions stipulated by law. Nowhere in this article is there a requirement that the candidate must be Muslim or male.<\/p>\n
Article 53 establishes the equality of all citizens before the law and prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, or gender. Meanwhile, Article 11 affirms the state’s commitment to achieving equality between women and men in civil, political, and other rights.<\/p>\n
As for Article 2, which establishes Islam as the religion of the state and the principles of Islamic Sharia as the principal source of legislation, it does not stipulate that the President of the Republic must be Muslim.<\/p>\n
Here, we must distinguish between the constitutional identity of the state and the political rights of the citizens who belong to it. The Egyptian state, with its history, civilization, and human diversity, does not belong to one religious community at the expense of another, or to one gender at the expense of the other.<\/p>\n
If we believe that Egyptians are equal in their duties, how can we accept that some of them should enjoy fewer rights than others? Do we expect Christian citizens to pay taxes, abide by the law, participate in building the nation, and defend it, only to tell them that there is an unwritten ceiling they must never cross, regardless of their qualifications?<\/p>\n
And do we celebrate Egyptian women as doctors, judges, ministers, scientists, and university professors, only to retreat when it comes to the highest political office, as though their ability to lead suddenly ends at the doors of the presidency?<\/p>\n
Citizenship that stops at certain boundaries is not full citizenship. It is conditional equality.<\/p>\n
This raises a philosophical question that goes beyond legal texts: Is democracy simply majority rule, or is it also a system that protects the minority’s right to participate, compete, and enjoy equal opportunities?<\/p>\n
The majority in any society may belong to a particular religion, and naturally, its culture and values will influence public life. But democracy does not mean that the identity of the majority becomes a prerequisite for monopolizing political power. The majority chooses who governs, but it does not have the right to strip minorities of their right to put themselves forward for that choice.<\/p>\n
There is an enormous difference between a voter rejecting a candidate because they disagree with the candidate’s platform or question their qualifications, and believing that the candidate does not have the right to run in the first place because of their religion or gender.<\/p>\n
The first is an exercise of democratic choice. The second is a denial of the principle of equality upon which a constitutional state is founded.<\/p>\n
I am not calling on Egyptians to elect a Christian because he is Christian, or a woman because she is a woman. Nor am I calling on them to elect a Muslim because he is Muslim, or a man because he is a man.<\/p>\n
I am advocating something both simpler and more profound: that the criteria for choosing a President should be competence, integrity, vision, and the ability to govern the state, and that ballot boxes should determine the outcome among competing candidates, rather than preconceived judgments about their identities.<\/p>\n
Here, we must distinguish between the right to run for office and the right to win.<\/p>\n
The former is a constitutional and legal right belonging to every citizen who fulfills the requirements, and no one should be denied that right on the grounds of religion or gender.<\/p>\n
The latter, however, is something no one possesses in advance. It is not granted by an academic degree, an institution, or a religious affiliation. It is determined solely by the will of voters in free and fair elections.<\/p>\n
A Christian citizen or a woman may run for office, and voters may choose someone else. That is their right. But no one has the right to prevent either from competing in the first place.<\/p>\n
The people’s right to choose is only complete when all legally qualified candidates enjoy equal rights to present themselves for that choice.<\/p>\n
But is constitutional permission enough? Of course not.<\/p>\n
There is a gap between constitutional text and social awareness, between declared rights and the actual ability to exercise them. The Constitution may open the door, while social culture closes it. The law may grant a right, while the political environment fails to provide equal opportunities to exercise it.<\/p>\n
This is what makes building democracy far more profound than simply writing a good constitution. Democracy requires genuine political parties, independent institutions, a free media, open political competition, and a society that learns to respect differences.<\/p>\n
Above all, it requires an education system that instills in future generations the understanding that the nation is not the exclusive domain of people who share one opinion, one belief, or one gender. Rather, it is built upon the diversity of its citizens and the complementary nature of their abilities.<\/p>\n
Perhaps the most concerning aspect of the reactions to the interview was not that some people rejected the idea of a Christian or a woman becoming President. Such preferences fall within the realm of personal opinions and are open to discussion. What is more troubling is their belief that this rejection is explicitly written into the Constitution.<\/p>\n
This is a moment when what society has grown accustomed to becomes confused with what the law actually provides, and when prevailing social attitudes are mistaken, in the minds of some, for constitutional provisions that simply do not exist.<\/p>\n
Herein lies the responsibility of intellectuals, politicians, educators, and the media: not to impose new convictions on people, but to help them distinguish between constitutional facts and personal opinions, between the right to choose and the desire to exclude others from being chosen.<\/p>\n
I welcomed the President’s confirmation that he would respect the constitutional term limit and would not seek to extend it. However, I hope we reach a day when respecting the Constitution no longer requires an announcement or celebration, because it has become a natural part of our political culture.<\/p>\n
I equally hope we reach a day when discussing the right of a woman or a Christian citizen to run for President of the Republic no longer provokes such astonishment, because equality has become a natural part of our social culture.<\/p>\n
The Constitution is not merely a document regulating the transfer of power. It is an expression of how a nation sees itself and of the nature of the relationship among its citizens.<\/p>\n
If we believe that the people are the source of all authority, we must also believe that every citizen who fulfills the requirements for presidential candidacy has the right to present themselves to the people.<\/p>\n
And if we believe in the peaceful transfer of power, we should not confine that process to a narrow circle defined by religious identity, gender, or the approval of any particular institution.<\/p>\n
Respect for the Constitution is not complete simply because a ruler honors the duration of their term. It is complete when society respects the rights of all its citizens, including those whom it may never imagine choosing.<\/p>\n
What is required is not that we elect a woman or a Christian as President of the Republic. What is required is that we do not prevent them from aspiring to the office, putting themselves forward as candidates, and submitting themselves, like everyone else, to the will of the people.<\/p>\n
A nation in which duties are equal must also be a nation in which rights are equal.<\/p>\n
And a Constitution that we respect when power changes hands must also be respected when determining who has the right to attain it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
I recently participated in a televised discussion about the future of Egypt’s presidency, following President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi’s announcement that he does not intend to amend the Constitution to extend his presidential term beyond 2030, and that he will abide by the constitutionally \u0928\u093f\u0930\u094d\u0927\u093e\u0930\u093f\u0924 term limit. What caught my attention was the extent of the …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":14132,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[280,103,16,197,302],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14307","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-2026-collective-activities-articles","category-all-articles","category-articles-by-dr-badrawi","category-translated-articles","category-veto-gate"],"yoast_head":"\n