I left for Cairo on Friday morning and on arrival was immediately plunged into a discourse between the two parts of the Egyptian bicameral parliament, the People’s Assembly and the Shura (Consultative) Council.
I was there at the invitation of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and the Egyptian based Alliance for Arab Women to talk about the relations between the Commons and the Lords in the UK. This is part of a larger programme of working with national partners to strengthen the Egyptian Parliament.
What struck me, having visited the Parliament several times in the past, is that the two Houses have little or no incentives or MECHANISMS to communicate. The Shura Council (the so-called Upper House) was set up by means of a constitutional amendment and has limited powers despite the many guarantees granted it by the Constitution.
One of their areas of interest was how the UK Parliament dealt with disagreements between the two Houses and I gave them the example of the historic 36-hour continuous sitting which took place in March 2005.
It concerned a disagreement about control orders, amongst other issues, within the context of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The Lords would not give way on this clause which they believed infringed the fundamental rights of those suspected of, but not charged with, terrorism; nor would the Commons. The bill went back and forth in what is called ping-pong. A compromise was desperately needed but not forthcoming.
The House could not adjourn or the bill would have been lost. So the sitting continued with the lords sleeping in library chairs or whiling the night away in the bar and restaurant – every time a modified amendment arrived from the Commons we were all summoned to the Chamber only to reject it once again. The Parliament Act was rumoured but at the last minute at about 4 PM on the second day a sunset clause, whereby a commitment to review the offending clause annually, was agreed. Many then tottered off to sleep.
I think our Egyptian colleagues were astonished that the Upper House could exercise this amount of delaying power.
Got back to London late on Sunday evening!
I’m afraid I knew next to nothing about the Alliance for Arab Women – and their English language site is not as clear as it might be – they seem somewhere between a pressure group and a NGO. Considering the absence of any meaningful democratic process in Egypt – nor any likelihood of change – I would think your anecdote guaranteed to surprise. The whole situation is pretty depressing tbh.
Having just looked at the Westminster Foundation for Democracy it seems by the Governors and Patrons to be almost exclusively MPs or ex-MPs. Where are the peers?
Yes, I’m afraid I approach Egypt with very mixed feelings. On the one hand it is always wonderful to see good friends again and especially those who work for justice at great risk to themselves. On the other hand it doesn’t do to start thinking about what actually goes on in police headquarters throughout the country. We KNOW that torture is endemic; a colleague told me the other day that his assertion that it was possible to get information without torturing suspects was met with genuine surprise by a group of senior police.
Lord (George) Foulkes who is also a Scottish MP is a Governor of WFD. Incidentally, WFD is unique in that it also funds political parties in projects aimed at strengthening the democratic process.
Foulkes was my ‘ex-MP’ Still seems hard to promote a two chamber system and not really represent one of the chambers!
When I see the reports from Amnesty and Freedom House they don’t really have a lot of positive things to say but then that’s largely true of the neighbouring states. It reminds me of Russell’s description of Russia as despotism tempered by assassination, is Egypt now that different.