You are here

44. Statistics: 27 Copts in the parliament in 1942, no Copts in the parliament in 1957 and three in 2005

Citation
Article title: 
44. Statistics: 27 Copts in the parliament in 1942, no Copts in the parliament in 1957 and three in 2005
Publishers: 
Year: 
2009
Week: 
20
Article number: 
44
Article pages: 
p. 18
Date of source: 
20-05-2009
Author: 
Shayma’ ‘Adil
Text
Article summary: 

A research study by an Egyptian political expert shows statistics of Coptic representation in the Egyptian Parliament in the period between 1924 and 2000.

Article full text: 

Dr. ‘Abd al-Rahmān ‘Abd al-‘Āl, a political expert at the National Center for Social and Criminal Research in Egypt released statistics about the number of Coptic parliamentary members in Egypt over the last 76 years; precisely between 1924 and 2000.
The statistics revealed that the highest Coptic representation in the parliament was in 1942 when Copts occupied 27 seats in the People’s Assembly out of a total of 264. The 27 Coptic members were all elected.
However, the lowest representation was in 1957 when Copts were not at all represented in the parliament. The number of Coptic MPs in 1957 was zero.
In the year 2000, Copts occupied six seats in the Egyptian Parliament; three of them were assigned and not elected.
‘Abd al-‘Āl attributed the Coptic absence in 1957 to Copts’ fear because of the lack of any Copt in the Leadership Council of the 1952 Revolution and the relationship of some of the members of the Revolution Leadership Council with the Muslim Brotherhood. This is in addition to the dissolution of political parties and the replacement of the Egyptian national movement with the Arab movement, which was not accepted by Copts.
‘Abd al-‘Āl referred to Pope Shenouda’s discourses in which he expressed resentment about the rarity of Coptic nominees to the parliament in the last few years, especially in 1995 when the ruling National Democratic party did not nominate any Copt on its lists.

Information
Article counter: 
69
Text type: 
Quality: 
The article contains no obvious errors...
Classification: 
Opinion
Classifications
Share this