Search results

The purpose of this study is to investigate the position of religion for the three constitutions of Egypt.

In this study, by tracing religious identity-related studies and seeing whether their existence is attributed to the ruling elites’ attitudes, it examines how factors such as new elites and new in ideology affect change of articles of religion.

The results demonstrate that the most significant factor was the existence of a new elite having a different ideology, which was obvious in the three constitutions: 1971, 2012 and 2014.

The manner in which studies of religion are written is the basis for legislation and the source of public policies that affect the discourse of political systems or results in economic and social rights that affect public policies. Therefore, if people are engaged in the process of drafting identity articles, they would participate in the reformation of their traditions and systems and there would be more integration in the society.

Few studies have attempted to work on the sociology of constitutions and religion in the Egyptian context.

Regulated differently in modern constitutions, emergency rule is a case of awkward, and dilemmatic, legal fine-tuning of an ambivalent political move that leads the executive of a democratic regime to the verge of the constitutional system. For that reason, as an utmost situation, emergency rule becomes a testing field for the resilience of the constitutional order. It affects its own foundations, the basic rights, and thus the constitutional capability to make possible their fulfilment. It also serves to appraise the workings of democratic regimes and, accordingly, the type of legitimacy derived from their institutional performance. Furthermore, it provides a vantage point to watch the reactions of both their representatives and their publics. Focussed on the COVID-19 pandemic, this chapter compares the cases of Germany and Spain through their legal regulations of emergency rule and their governments’ responses. Having rather analogous emergency legislations, from 2020 through 2022, there have been significant differences in their decision-making patterns.

The purpose of this chapter is to present a brief overview about the measures adopted in Portugal in the context of the Coronavirus pandemic. This public health crisis gave room in two separate occasions for the declaration of a state of emergency. What is interesting, though, is that it can be argued that a real state of exception occurred not when the state of emergency was in force, but precisely when it was not. This has only been possible because the Government decided to adopt measures that would restrict fundamental rights, because the Parliament did not intervene in such a proceeding, and because the Administrative Supreme Court was arguably too lenient towards the Government. For a while at least, it seems to have occurred a ‘provisional abolition of the distinction among legislative, executive and judicial powers’ (Agamben, 2005). This has been confirmed by subsequent decisions from the Constitutional Court.