Some consensus, at least verbal, had appeared among the majority in Egypt over the general framework of the next regime of rule, during the protest movement that toppled the former regime. Yet such consensus did not survive during the phase of seeking to build such a framework. Indeed, each party to this majority that overthrew President Hosni Mubarak went on to seek to make use of the mobilization within its ranks to achieve electoral gains that would be translated into numbers in the next parliament, where building the framework of the next regime will be completed. It thus became clear that the dispute over what is referred to in Egypt as “supra-constitutional principles” is based on political Islam movements clinging to keeping the issue of the fundamental principles in the constitution suspended until after the elections. Indeed, those movements expect to gain an advanced position in parliament that would allow them to keep such principles in check in accordance with their political leanings. The principles disputed are related to constitutional rights, such as the secular nature of the state; upholding public freedoms, political pluralism, freedom of thought and freedom of religion; forming political parties; complete equality between citizens; and alternation of power. And when non-Islamist forces of various streaks demanded that these rights be set down as constitutional principles that would be reached through dialogue, and consecrated by the Military Council as inalienable constitutional rights, they did this out of fear that political Islam movements would move to amending all or some of them in case they obtain the parliamentary majority, which would entail a constitutional coup d'état that would do away with all the gains in terms of rights achieved by the protest movement and would restore tyrannical rule. Reinforcing such fears is the deliberate mixing put forward by Islamist movements between executive constitutional principles (the work of state institutions) which can be amended and modified according to circumstances, and between constitutional principles concerned with rights, which tampering with would represent an assault on the core rights of citizens. This kind of mixing is made no less dangerous by the logic of pure form used by the Islamists to refuse to consolidate principles of citizen's rights in the constitution. Indeed, they currently justify their refusal by the fact that the recent referendum did not include them, and that consolidating them should be subject to the people's approval, or to a future referendum. Yet the stance expressed by the “million man march” and the threats of further “million man marches” confirm that those fears are not merely related to intentions or suspicions, but rather to a political stance expressed by Islamist movements in the street, one that does not hide its rejection of the constitutional principles that would protect the country from the return of tyranny, under the pretext that they are incompatible with Islam. In this sense, the formula of “supra-constitutional principles” hides within itself the same deception, as it suggests that constitutional principles of the fundamental rights of citizens are outside of and above the constitution, and that they are equivalent to enmity towards Islam and to taking away Egypt's national identity. Islamist movements exploited such claims to organize their “million man march” and for the slogans that were raised there. And this is perhaps what has increased fears in this direction, not just on the part of non-Islamist movements, but also on the part of the government, which recognized the necessity for consensus through dialogue to consecrate fundamental political rights in the constitution before parliamentary elections. In this sense, building the framework of the new Egyptian regime is going through a natural phase headed in the future either towards consolidating the fundamental rights which the protest movement had demanded and consecrating them in the constitution as inalienable, or towards keeping the seeds of tyranny.
