"Lend us your thumbs"

"Good morning freedom"

These pink thumbs were all over Egypt yesterday, as 41.2% of the 45 million eligible Egyptian voters (which means 18.5 million people) cast their ballots to vote "yes" or "no" on nine new amendments to the Egyptian constitution. Since only 10 - 25 % (depending on who you ask) of those 45 million turned out for Parliamentary elections last November, this is a great improvement. A full list of the amendments is in English here, but highlights (from BBC) include:

• Reducing presidential terms from six years to four years and limiting the president to two terms

• Obliging the president to choose a deputy within 30 days of election

• Installing new criteria for presidential candidates, including a rule that they must be over 40 years old and not married to a non-Egyptian

For the first time in memory, this was an election in which voters felt their voice actually mattered. Friends who scoffed at the mere prospect of voting in earlier elections eagerly spoke of their pink thumbs yesterday, as the country held its breath to wait for the results.

Tonight, they were announced: official results put 77% of the voters as having said "yes", and approving the constitutional amendments.

So now what?

To be honest, I know of only one Egyptian who was planning to vote "yes." Every one else I know voted "no" - and it wasn't a wavering no. Many of the people I know feel that an entirely new constitution is needed, not simply repairs on a what they see as a corrupt, unfixable constitution, created by a corrupt, unfixable regime. They also argue that those who stand to gain the most from a "yes" vote are the NDP (Mubarak's party) and the Muslim Brotherhood - no one else is well-established enough yet to stand against them, particularly if elections are called quickly (which will be done if there is an approved constitution). Additionally, they feel these amendments give too much power to the president (or, rather, keep too much power with him. And the language is very much about "him", not "him or her." Yet another issue). To be frank, I agree with all of these arguments, and were I Egyptian, I would have said"no."

But in the end, many of the Egyptians I know best - the English-speakers, the higher-educated, the urban, the Christians, more liberal Muslims - do not necessarily represent the majority. And, the majority voted. And this is part of democracy, is it not? It's a messy thing, politics, and in turn, democracy. It's not an overnight sea-change - especially after 30 years of the same president - and as Heather Keaney mentioned, it's far more than a ballot: it's a state of mind.

There's some talk today of closed voting stations in areas densely populated by Christians, and other talk of a slight lack of transparency. However, most initial reports indicate that polling was generally fair, and unlike the last elections, there were no thugs patrolling outside voting stations, beating and threatening people, or paying them off. But there is still disappointment among Egyptians I know, and some of those who stood in Tahrir Square for all of those days are wondering if the results of this vote are a slippery slide back towards a regime. Others are holding a very interesting discussion about how you build informed democracy in a country with high illiteracy rates. As one article states,

One of the main reasons that brought the majority of opposition forces to ask for a delay or the abolition of the referendum is in fact the following: most of the population is reportedly unaware of what these reforms actually mean. In a country where literacy rates are not higher than 83 percent, plumbing down to 59 percent among women, many believe that this referendum was not supported by a sufficient public debates that would stir the country from more than a half-century sleep under undemocratic rule.

I have no resolution to this post, because I'm waiting to see where things go. One friend stated, "Although I said "no", I am happy that Democracy took place and the decision is by the Majority :)." And he's right: the majority chose. And, God willing, they will continue to choose, which means this isn't over. Those opposed can continue to work towards a more informed electorate, and since the Constitutional amendments require that a new Constitution be written by an assembly appointed by the new Parliament (yet to be elected) there should be another referendum in the future. (Note: this sounds good, but the caution is that if the NDP and the Muslim Brotherhood are the only ones prepared to run in elections, then how representative will a new constitution –written by one of them – actually be?).

Though many from the youth movement that led the protests in Tahrir wonder if their gains will be lost through this vote, I do hope they remember this: that this chance to participate in a referendum and know it actually matters is part of what they fought for. It's only the beginning, yes, but it's yet another step.