 |
Al-Ahram Weekly On-line 9 -15 November 2000 Issue No.507 
| ||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly On-line 9 -15 November 2000 Issue No.507
| ||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Books Travel Living Sports Profile People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters But where is politics?
By Mohamed El-Sayed Said *
Certain remarkable things have happened in the parliamentary elections. These are certainly the most honest elections held in the past 50 years. They are by no means fraud-free, but complete judicial supervision has guaranteed the largest measure of fairness experienced by voters in living memory. Opposition parties will gain a minimal representation, of which they have been deprived since 1987. The Muslim Brothers have also made a smooth transition to de facto legitimacy within the political system, in a way very contradictory with current state policy toward the grouping. The election has also permitted the people to unleash their anger against the nominally ruling NDP, as demonstrated by its miserable performance. In this sense, the state should clearly get the message: the public demands significant reform.
Nonetheless, the elections fall far short of injecting new vigour into the political system. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose: the maxim applies perfectly this time too. The vast majority of independents elected have hurried to join the NDP as usual, thus giving it the overwhelming majority needed to keep the old set-up intact and very well guarded. The opposition parties combined have won only a slim slice of parliamentary representation, far lower than the representation the opposition enjoyed in 1987. The elections have also demonstrated the corrupting role of big business and big money. Purchasing votes like any other commodity was tolerated. It was not necessarily a guaranteed way of winning seats, but the mere fact that it is allowed is a scandal.
The fundamental flaw, however, is the consolidation of an ubiquitous voting pattern. People are accustomed to voting for those who can provide them with services, not for their political or party affiliations. On the other hand, those citizens who may wish to see a truly political election simply do not vote. This latter fact is further confirmed by the results of the first two rounds of voting. Voter turnout seems to be even lower than expected -- tangibly below the levels recorded in 1995. Observers and analysts have grown used to this behaviour, particularly in the rural areas. But a new feature of the elections has escaped the notice of all observers this time. It seems to me that the voters have intentionally voted against politics, or more precisely against those known to be "politicians," unless other factors, particularly village loyalties, compensated for this "fault."
One major figure running in a rural constituency was sternly advised not to talk politics if he really wanted to win. The conclusion most candidates have reached is that politics did them more harm than good. This was explained by the admonition, so popular and so often repeated nowadays, regardless of the occasion, that "we need action, not speeches." Against this background, people voted for those they considered "benevolent" and charitable or nice persons. In fact, even Muslim Brothers who succeeded did so not so much because of their politics but because they are "liked" for their systematic delivery of services or for production of an image of personal goodness.
Village loyalties, on the whole, have prevailed systematically over all other considerations. Even when the candidate from the next village enjoys fame and respect for his social status or political standing, voters preferred the candidate from their own village, however unknown or insignificant. Inter-village squabbles have filled the rural areas with tension and conflicts.
In brief, politics is the main loser this time around. This point is driven home by comparisons between the performance of major NDP symbols with that of their party colleagues who ran as independents and had nothing to offer but services and no resources to draw on but village loyalties.
This outcome seems to be at odds with the fairness of judicial administration. The dismal performance of opposition parties and public figures was not challenged in the past because most analysts and observers believed that past elections were rigged. Now, with the results of this round unfolding, this convenient explanation is incorrect, or at least far from adequate.
What, then, could be the explanation for the voting pattern that has emerged? Where should we locate this election in Egypt's political evolution?
One theory holds that Egypt is not unique with respect to politics and its role in society at this moment. A new agenda, largely apolitical, has gained a foothold within the political arena. This emerging pattern is said to be behind the "crisis of governability" even in mature democracies. New generations in particular are apathetic. This means that the classical forms of politics and political practice are undergoing a long-term eclipse worldwide. Egypt is no different on that account.
Another theory states that the election results conform to the widespread distrust of politicians (rather than politics) in Egypt. Some argue that this phenomenon is the result of the state's long fight against free and independent political expression since 1952. The emergence of an apolitical society is thus seen as the outcome of a long legacy of a specific brand of (populist? benevolent?) authoritarianism.
The two theories have different implications for elections in the future. Extrapolating on the first, one may conclude that future elections will be no different. The pattern of voting will prevail, as far as we can see. We are thus advised to reckon with this fact. In this perspective, those who strive for constitutional and political reform will have either to forget it or to rely on an extra-long process that may eventually bring full democracy by default.
The second theory leads to a different conclusion. Focusing on the positive signs, such as the greater representation of opposition parties and independents, it contends that this is the first truly free election in almost 50 years. People have not yet grown accustomed to judicial control and integrity. Indeed, the fairness of the elections has surprised everybody, most of all politicised, independent and free-thinking candidates and potential candidates. In this vein, people will learn, and act in consequence. This first free election will eventually change the voting pattern. Learning through the democratic process is the key to democratisation, not the other way around. In other words, people can bring about democracy through practice.
Must we await the next elections to test these two hypotheses? I believe not. The key to democratisation, after all, is the actual exercise of its prerogatives, the actual "possession" of its fundamental values.
* The writer is deputy director of the Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies.
Related stories:
Tribes on the move
Softening the blow
A new page for the Brotherhood?
Against the odds 2 - 8 November 2000
Election surprises defy pundits 26 Oct. - 1 Nov. 2000
Poll tough on Islamists 19 - 25 October 2000
The Brothers' last sigh? 5 - 11 October 2000
See Elections 2000© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
