Editorial: Egypt constitution more gravel than bedrock

• The unwieldy document pays homage to democratic values, then leaves future parliaments free to subvert them.
• It's also true that first attempts at constitutions have failed in many countries, including the United States.
• Egypt's vibrant political discussion assures that this is not the final word.

It would be easy to write off Egypt's convoluted new constitution, approved by voters Saturday, as marking the impending death of the Arab Spring. Whether measured by its words or by its provenance, the document that was supposed to usher in an era of stability seems destined instead to produce a contentious mess.

It is appropriately despised by the democrats whose protests ended the 30-year rule of Hosni Mubarak. The unwieldy document pays homage to democratic values, then leaves future parliaments free to subvert them, which victorious Islamists are openly eager to do.

Nor does the constitution have the broad-based legitimacy that foundational documents need for a competitive democracy to thrive. It came to a vote only because Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi claimed near-dictatorial powers to make sure courts couldn't block his will. Even then, barely a third of the dispirited electorate turned out to vote.

A constitution is supposed to be bedrock. This one is gravel.

But it's also true that first attempts at constitutions have failed in many countries — including the United States — and Egypt's vibrant political discussion assures that this is not the final word.

The most immediate question is what Morsi intends to build on this flimsy foundation and what the circumstances will allow.

The Islamists have undoubtedly gotten a strong upper hand, and they attained it democratically. But Morsi knows that if they push too hard, international aid will evaporate, worsening a weak economy. The Muslim Brotherhood will get the blame.

Less clear is whether the secular opposition can capitalize. So far, it has shown little appetite for the nitty-gritty political organizing needed to compete with the Islamists at the polls.

Much now depends on Morsi.

He has at least shown signs of recognizing that he overplayed his hand. He partially rescinded his dictatorial decree, though only after scheduling the vote, and he surely sees the need to improve the economy.

From a U.S. perspective, he has also shown himself to be a cunning pragmatist in the international arena. When Hamas provoked a conflict with Israel, many expected Morsi to side with the Brotherhood offshoot and begin to break away from Egypt's peace treaty with Israel. Instead, he brokered a cease-fire and stuck to the treaty.

But at home, he faces a Herculean task — forging a workable, democratic system in which secularists and Islamists peacefully compete in successive elections. With no mutual trust and now a weak constitution, renewed rebellion seems more likely.

The contest between democracy and religious law set off almost two years ago was always certain to be a long one. Egypt's new constitution is a step backward. But it is not the end of the story.