Egypt’s Agony

The revolution in Egypt is in danger of being lost in a spasm of violence, power grabs and bad judgments. The top aides to President Mohamed Morsi of Egypt were in Washington this week to promote their country as a new democratic model for the Arab world. But it was Mr. Morsi’s dictatorial edict placing himself above the law last month that ignited this crisis. By Thursday, street fighting between Mr. Morsi’s Islamist supporters and their secular opponents left at least six dead and 450 wounded, tanks blocked Cairo’s streets and the special presidential guard took up positions around his palace. Nine officials have resigned from the Morsi administration in protest over the bloodshed and his handling of the turmoil. On Thursday night, Mr. Morsi further deepened the crisis by accusing some protesters for the opposition of siding with remnants of the old Mubarak regime. He again refused to rescind the decree giving him near absolute powers and insisted on a going forward with a referendum on Dec. 15 on a disputed draft constitution over the objections of the secular opposition and the Coptic Christian Church. There is little doubt that some of the opposition, which has been divided and feckless, want to restore the old autocratic order. Those elements have been quick to exploit tensions with violence and fear of the Muslim Brotherhood, which Mr. Morsi once helped lead and whose Freedom and Justice Party dominates the government. But other members of the opposition want to build a pluralistic society where freedoms and the voice of all the people are respected. The draft constitution would fulfill some central demands of the revolution by ending the all-powerful presidency, strengthening Parliament and banning torture and detention without trial. Demands by ultraconservative Salafis for puritanical moral codes were rejected. But it would give Egypt’s generals much of the power and privilege they had during the Mubarak era. According to Human Rights Watch, constitutional articles that give the state power to protect “the true nature of the Egyptian family” and “ethics and morals and public order” could be interpreted to limit fundamental rights. The charter is weak on women’s rights, omitting any reference to banning discrimination based on sex but permitting the state a role in balancing “a woman’s obligations toward the family and public work” — an area where it should have no right to interfere. While one article protects freedom of expression, others ban insulting prophets and “the individual person” and may make it hard to reform laws that have allowed the prosecution of government critics, the human rights group said. Another article limits the right to practice religion to Muslims, Christians and Jews, thus discriminating against Shiites, Bahias and others. There were also very troubling problems with the process of its creation. Secular and Coptic Christian members walked out of the assembly that wrote the constitution, charging that the group was stacked with Islamists. After that, the assembly quickly approved the constitution and Mr. Morsi sped up the referendum date by several months. He said he had to assert far-reaching powers and pre-empt a Mubarak-appointed court from dissolving the assembly and thwarting the democratic transition. Many Egyptians are deeply skeptical of the Muslim Brotherhood and its vision for the country. Mr. Morsi should have worked much harder to bring opposition figures into his government, ensure the Constitutional Assembly was fully representative and that there was broad consensus for the constitution before the referendum was set. At this point, the only way forward for dialogue is if Mr. Morsi delays the referendum and rescinds his decree. Neither he nor his opponents can afford to let this dangerous and self-defeating confrontation continue.