 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 20 - 26 July 2000 Issue No. 491 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 20 - 26 July 2000 Issue No. 491
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Features Travel Living Sports Profile People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Off the books
By Amira HoweidyDespite active planning three months ago and an allegedly "successful experience" in the last parliamentary elections, held in 1995, human rights groups will not form a watchdog committee to monitor the coming ballot, expected in November.
In view of the difficulties facing rights groups seeking to monitor the coming elections -- among them the recent arrest of prominent non-governmental organisation (NGO) figure Saadeddin Ibrahim, a restrictive NGO law (later declared to be unconstitutional) and the scarcity of foreign funding -- the groups say they are too discouraged to make a tradition of the venture.
The Egyptian Organisation for Human Rights (EOHR) was one of six rights groups that formed the nation's first election-watch committee in 1995. But its secretary-general, Hafez Abu Se'da, said the only activity the EOHR may undertake in connection with the coming ballot is a "regular monitoring role in the form of a report, perhaps."
The EOHR, together with several other rights groups, had engaged in serious discussions in April with the Ibn Khaldun Centre for Developmental Studies, the NGO directed by Ibrahim, about establishing a committee similar to that of 1995. However, the plan did not work out because the groups disagreed over inviting international watch groups to join.
"This was never resolved, and our perspectives differed, so the project was thwarted," Abu Se'da said. Although they considered monitoring the elections individually, the groups were loath to take on the task, due to the scarcity of funding and fear of possible governmental retribution.
"Although the arrest of Ibrahim is said to have been prompted by financial irregularities, we all realise that his plan to monitor the elections is the real reason," claimed Salah Eissa, chief editor of Al-Qahira newspaper and a leading advocate of political reform.
Ibrahim was spokesman for the 1995 election-watch committee that included more than 100 academics, human rights activists and former diplomats. Headed by economist Said El-Naggar, the committee's work was financed with an LE56,000 budget, said to be donated in full by member organisations and individuals. This made it possible for the committee to allegedly deploy 600 human rights activists to observe the balloting in 88 constituencies. The committee's work came under fire from top state officials, who slammed it as unconstitutional.
Demoralised, rights activists maintain that the general climate of the 1995 elections was more democratic than today's. Says Negad El-Bora'i, director of the Group for Democratic Development (GDD), "How can anyone imagine that any rights group would do this again?" The GDD voluntarily shut down in reaction to the "restrictive and discouraging environment" created by the NGO law and the widespread criticism directed at foreign funding.
Although the GDD had not been established at the time of the 1995 elections, it issued a lengthy report following its formation in 1996 on political participation. "The GDD came into existence because of the elections and the report it issued; we felt there was so much we could do," El-Bora'i explained.
Foreign donors who finance the activities of rights groups in Egypt have either stopped doing so, or were put on hold by groups fearing they could be harassed for accepting the funds. The case of Ibrahim, who has been in custody for over three weeks for accepting foreign money without notifying the authorities, sent shock waves across the spectrum of civil society and served as a reminder of Abu Se'da's arrest, on a similar charge, in 1998.
Though the picture looks bleak, there may be better times ahead. The Supreme Constitutional Court has ruled that parliamentary elections should take place under full judicial supervision, meaning that the coming ballot will be monitored anyway -- by the judiciary.
"This, of course, is a good thing -- a positive development which we all welcome," said Eissa. "But the electoral process isn't just about the actual balloting. What control does a judge have over what happens before, during and after the event?" he asked.
As the leading founder of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee established by several intellectuals, politicians and political party leaders, Eissa has argued that many guarantees have to be made by the government before elections will be completely fair: "The electoral lists have to be cleared of repeated names and the names of dead people and emigrants; the ballot boxes have to be made of glass, so we can see what's inside; all candidates must have equal rights in campaigning."
The fact that the coming elections will not be monitored by NGOs "doesn't mean we won't know if rigging takes place," Eissa added. "But we will not have the opportunity to pressure the government, via our reports, to work harder for fair elections."
Relates stories:
The burden of proof -13 - 19 July 2000
Prominent NGO figure arrested - 6 - 12 July 2000
Poll watch-dogs keep low profile - 23 - 29 November 1995
Watch group warns of election backlash - 14 - 20 December 1995
