For the first time since its adoption, debate over Egypt’s 2014 constitution has moved beyond amending individual provisions to calls for an entirely new document. Within days, two proposals shifted discussion away from partial changes like those of 2019 toward questioning the constitution’s suitability. Their proponents argue that it was drafted in exceptional circumstances and no longer reflects the present phase.
The first came from appeals court president and international law researcher Khaled El-Qady, who called at a Bibliotheca Alexandrina seminar for a new constitution suited to what he described as the transformations of the “New Republic.” Essam Khalil, Free Egyptians Party leader and senator, followed with the first formal call from a party represented in parliament. He proposed a national dialogue to draft a new constitution, arguing that the state needs a modern constitutional and legislative system rather than scattered amendments.
Supporters say the exceptional political context of 2014 and the changes of the past decade require a rebuilt framework. Opponents connect the timing to the end of President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi’s current term in 2030. They question whether replacing the constitution could prepare the way for rewriting the rules of power, especially presidential term limits.
From crisis management to a new constitution
In a statement, the Free Egyptians Party called for a national dialogue to prepare a constitution responding to the next phase’s needs. It said the “New Republic” requires a modern constitutional and legislative system, not piecemeal changes. The document should stabilise state institutions and give the legislature greater scope to develop laws in line with economic and social change.
The party said Egypt under El-Sisi had moved from managing crises to construction and development. It argued that this approach requires reconsideration of both frameworks and a move from scattered legal amendments to rebuilding the legislative system on more modern, sustainable foundations.
Since the 2019 amendments extended presidential terms from four to six years and created the constitutional arrangements allowing El-Sisi to remain in office until 2030, serious discussion had largely concerned partial amendments rather than replacing the constitution.
In contrast, MP Diaa El-Din Dawoud says the priority is to implement the constitution and fulfil its requirements, particularly social justice, education and healthcare. He tells Zawia3 that his opposition to amendments has not changed since the 2019 debate. In his view, today’s calls arise from the same motives as the earlier changes.
Any proposed amendment, he adds, should be assessed in light of its political purpose. He believes some current proposals concern familiar objectives connected to presidential terms and would not win broad popular acceptance.
Extending the presidency
A constitutional expert who requested anonymity says the growing calls for a new constitution or amendments cannot be separated from presidential term limits. In the expert’s view, their principal purpose is to pave the way for El-Sisi to remain in power beyond 2030.
The expert tells Zawia3 that the argument that the 2014 constitution was written under exceptional circumstances does not adequately justify rewriting it. Most constitutions emerge in unusual political contexts and can remain applicable for decades if there is a willingness to respect them.
The constitution underwent substantial amendments in 2019, including presidential term provisions enabling the current president to remain until 2030. Reopening the issue only a few years later, the expert says, raises questions about the real motives.
Article 140 states that a president may not serve more than two terms. The 2019 transitional arrangements have allowed the current presidency to extend to 2030. The expert argues that remaining beyond that date would require a direct constitutional amendment or a new constitution altering the rules for counting terms. That is, in the expert’s view, the heart of the debate, even when presented as building the “New Republic” or modernising legislation.
The expert believes that drafting a new constitution might be legally easier than amending restricted provisions because it could rebuild the whole system, including government structures and presidential candidacy conditions, without the same problems posed by changing existing text.
The expert warns that repeatedly changing constitutional rules as presidential terms approach their end undermines stability and confidence in the transfer of power. Constitutions should stabilise the rules of government, rather than adapt them to the political authority’s needs at each stage.
Under the current constitutional arrangements, the president’s eligibility ends with his term in 2030. Any scenario allowing him to continue would require constitutional changes or new arrangements. Observers therefore connect calls for a replacement constitution to the future of power after 2030, although no official announcement has opened that process.
Article 226 requires approval by two-thirds of the House of Representatives followed by a public referendum. It also restricts changes to provisions governing presidential re-election unless they add further guarantees. Critics nevertheless recall the broad 2019 changes to presidential tenure as evidence that political decisions can outweigh legal obstacles in such matters.
Dawoud declines to speculate on whether amendments could pass parliament. He says that question belongs to the parliamentary majority that holds decision-making power, rather than MPs who have declared their opposition.
His position remains unchanged, he stresses. He will continue taking positions dictated by his conscience and what he believes protects the state’s interests and the country’s safety. Every MP, he says, bears personal responsibility before voters and history.
Conservative Party leader Talaat Khalil also rejects calls to amend or replace the constitution. He argues that it must not become an instrument rewritten whenever political necessities or calculations change.
He tells Zawia3 that repeatedly reopening the constitution sends damaging signals about stability and undermines confidence in the rule of law. Constitutional documents should provide enduring rules for relations among authorities and guarantees of rights and freedoms, rather than repeatedly changing to suit political circumstances.
Egypt faces complex economic and regional challenges, Khalil says, which require addressing existing crises instead of reopening constitutional questions touching what he calls the “fundamentals of the state.” In his view, the problem lies less in the 2014 text than in the failure to implement and respect it.
He opposed the 2019 amendments and believes renewed proposals deepen public frustration and weaken confidence in real political reform if constitutional changes remain tied to the incumbent authority.
Serious reform, he adds, should rest on respect for stable constitutional rules. Continuing to rewrite them could further erode trust in politics at a time when economic and social challenges call for institutional stability and a wider public sphere.
Why are calls for change growing?
Human rights lawyer Halim Heneish sees the proposals as fundamentally intended to allow El-Sisi to remain after his current term—a goal he regards as familiar from Egypt’s recent constitutional changes.
He tells Zawia3 that changes since 2014 have been connected, directly or indirectly, to presidential tenure, alongside a shrinking public sphere and weaker safeguards for democratic life and peaceful transfers of power. He views the present debate as a continuation of that trajectory rather than a response to urgent constitutional needs.
On prospects for opposing amendments, Heneish says the political landscape differs greatly from earlier periods. Weaker parties and a contracted public sphere have reduced the ability to organise effective opposition. Political currents across the spectrum have faced pressures limiting their activity, as illustrated by the difficulties confronting electoral initiatives and opposition figures in recent years.
This makes passage more likely if proposals are formally introduced, in his assessment, because organised opposition capable of mobilising opinion is absent. He cautions, however, that unpredictable variables remain: rising economic and social pressures may change public sentiment. The absence of political channels for expressing discontent does not mean there will be no reaction; reactions may emerge in forms or at times that are difficult to predict or control.
Political figure Akram Ismail rejects amendments or a replacement constitution intended to give El-Sisi another period in office. Reopening the issue every few years, he says, reflects an insistence on “re-engineering constitutional provisions to suit the wishes of political authority,” instead of respecting the transfer of power.
He tells Zawia3 that political forces opposed the 2019 amendments and called on the president not to seek another term. Today’s calls constitute a “dangerous precedent” because they raise the same issue in another form.
Ismail believes the president has spent sufficient time in office and Egypt needs a transition allowing the election of a new president to reassess policy and offer different approaches to its crises. Citizens face mounting pressures from inflation and growing public debt, he notes.
Any amendment extending the president’s tenure would, he argues, empty the next election of competitive substance and turn it into a formality, perpetuating current policies and closing the door to genuine change. The natural path, in his view, is for the current term to end under existing rules, followed by competitive elections enabling a peaceful transfer and a choice among alternatives.
The controversy goes beyond the presidency. The proposals intersect with suggestions to redistribute the powers of constitutional institutions, including reconsideration of Al-Azhar’s role in reviewing personal-status legislation. This gives the debate broader implications than the amendment of a few provisions.
Wider executive powers
The latest calls form part of a broader discussion beginning last year. In June 2025, counsellor Farag Hafez El-Dorry called for wider Senate powers, which observers saw as preparation for reopening constitutional amendments. Broadcaster Mohamed El-Baz advocated reconsidering presidential term lengths, arguing that state administration requires longer continuity. Former Wafd Party leader Abdel-Sanad Yamama sought a rewritten chapter on government granting the executive wider powers.
In February 2026, counsellor Adly Hussein joined the discussion, calling for the 2014 constitution to be changed “in form and substance” because, in his view, it still carried traces of the 2012 constitution.
At a committee meeting discussing the accelerated return of local councils, Hussein said debate about amendments offered an opportunity for comprehensive reconsideration. Citing his legal experience during Muslim Brotherhood rule, he characterised the 2014 document as merely an amendment of the 2012 constitution. He argued for a new document with different provisions suited to the present phase.
No official constitutional process had begun at the time of publication. Yet the shift from amending individual provisions to replacing the whole 2014 constitution marks a significant change in recent political rhetoric. Supporters invoke the “New Republic” and legislative modernisation; opponents say the approach of the current presidential term’s end in 2030 makes it difficult to separate the proposals from the future of power and constitutional limits on tenure.
