I found many people voicing this concern:
The army has clearly defined what will happen when the people vote "yes", but the consequences of voting "no" is left wide open. This is their way for pushing people to vote "yes". Unless the consequences of voting "no" are as well defined, and supported by the army, "yes" seems to be the only viable option.
That is a good point and it is one that I worry about it also. Those who vote NO should work hard to formulate and plan on how to move forward.
However, the trouble with voting YES is that the next president will have the power to terminate the work of the constitutional framers, dissolve parliament, appoint a new ministerial cabinet and retain the fantastic powers he has according to the 1971 amended constitution. I was shocked that when I put that question to councilman Sobhy Saleh (on of the drafters of the the amendment) at seminar in Cairo University, that he could not give me a straight answer.
With the army playing now the role of the SS (very sad by true), and the SS itself recovering, I am really concerned about what is to become of our revolution if we were simply trust it to the army or the next president. I don't want us to be in a position where the future of our nation solely depends on the honesty and good will of the next president.
A large demonstration like the one we had on Jan 28 was no picnic, and I wouldn't want to repeat it unnecessarily because we are a bit worried about the ensuing uncertainty of a "NO". I like this quote by Ghandi:
"A 'No' uttered from the deepest conviction is better than a 'Yes' merely uttered to please, or worse, to avoid trouble."
This is why I am voting 'NO" and will immediately start working on building societal dialog so that we can chart an honorable path out of the current situation.