Yes. I'll give you one example, even if it seems a little bit arcane.
The constitution says in article 4 that in matters of the Islamic sharia, in matters of Islamic law, Al-Azhar, this institution that I referred to before, should be consulted. That was put in there for all kinds of political reasons having to do with the constituents they had to satisfy. It was deliberately worded in the passive voice, so it wasn't clear who was supposed to be consulting Al-Azhar.
It looked to me like a clause that was there for its symbolic value, but one that wasn't necessarily going to have any operative meaning. Well, Al-Azhar has stepped into the breach. It hasn't waited to be consulted.
In one issue, for instance, the UN document on preventing violence against women, which the Brotherhood has publicly attacked, Al-Azhar has decided to take it up and say that they will, on their own, see whether or not this is consistent with the Islamic sharia.
You have a system in which the Brotherhood thinks that because it's the Muslim Brotherhood and because it has electoral majorities, it can in a sense almost speak for Islam, and push Islam within the country. But what it has found out is that it has empowered this alternative institution, Al-Azhar, the leadership of which is not particularly friendly to the Brotherhood, and which has its own interpretation.
Rather than write a constitution that empowers them, they've empowered another structure to speak for Islam, and one that has a lot of legitimacy within Egyptian society.