The devil in the detail

Elections, in the absence of credible candidates, mean nothing, writes Amin Howeidy

---

Constitutional change

Article 76 of the constitution, the president has told the nation, is to be amended to allow for multiple-candidate presidential elections. This announcement has probably sounded the death knell to our hobbled democracy and the public is duly grateful. No longer will we have to vote yes or no in presidential referendums for from now on there will be several candidates to choose from, each promoting a different manifesto.

The surprise move came after much balking. The general public, and political parties, had both been clamouring for constitutional change. While the president advised caution Gamal Mubarak, the president's son and head of the National Democratic Party's (NDP) Policies Committee, hinted at the possibility of constitutional amendments. The leaders of opposition parties said they could wait till after the presidential referendum.

Then came the bombshell. The presidential decision took everyone -- friend as well foe -- by surprise. It was immediately hailed as a coup of sorts. Such was the jubilation provoked by the move that few pondered its implications or withheld judgement until more details emerged.

And it is in the details that the devil dwells. Ballot boxes could, in the end, be just a gimmick. Multiple candidacy could be a smokescreen for more of the same. Things may not always be as they seem. Why did not the president ask for a change to Article 77, asked some, the article that in practice allows the president to remain endlessly in office? The 1971 Constitution, you may recall, limited the president's service to two terms in office. The president answered this question bluntly: "The people can choose their president, and [the president can] take his seat once, twice, or thrice. The whole world is moving in this direction."

In other words, the person who wins the presidential elections could remain in power for a great many terms. How does this, I wonder, differ from the monarchical system that existed before the revolution? And how will it assuage fears, both domestic and foreign, of how power might be bequeathed in Egypt?

Legislative experts have been asked to come up with restrictions that will guarantee that presidential candidates are of the necessary stature. There is nothing wrong with this. Legislators, like costume designers, are used to producing made to measure items. Laws, just like clothes, have to fit.

But whose shape are we tailoring towards?

This is one of the questions with which the legislators must grapple. Should political guarantees be fashioned to fit those already in power? Or should these guarantees fit the nation, the ultimate source of power?

What worries me most is the scarcity of viable candidates for the president's office. I see very few people with the kind of track record that might qualify them for the post. The incumbent president seems to agree. "Parties should participate in the coming presidential elections, even if they feel unprepared, in order to make the experiment work... Someone has to run if they want the experiment to succeed."

The absence of viable candidates is a more significant issue than the amendment of Article 76 or the addition of Article 192. Out of a population of 70 million we have no credible presidential candidates? This is shameful. Israel's population is less than that of one of the larger Cairo neighbourhoods and yet it has multiple candidates for top political jobs, candidates whose names we know by heart.

The reason for this situation is that Egypt's most senior officials stay too long in their posts. This longevity discourages new generations from competing for power. The institutions stagnate. All vitality is drained. And yet they remain in power. Other nations move ahead through bouts of change, through innovation introduced by new leaders.

Not Egypt, though. Here we stick to old faces, maintain old ways, foster old enmities, encourage nepotism and end up mired in outdated slogans, stuck with the same old problems. How can political parties succeed in any presidential bid when they fail so dismally in parliamentary elections, elections that are supervised by judges who end up besieged in polling stations while voters scramble outside, hopelessly struggling against the odds to reach the polling booths. This sad situation will most likely continue if the president is allowed to stay in office indefinitely.

Let's get this right: our problem is that people cling onto office for far too long. We deserve alternatives and need more candidates. Only then can elections be a matter of substance, not form. I agree with El-Sayed Yassin who, in his article "Revolutionary decision on reform", published in Al-Ahram on 3 March, said that for reform to succeed the president should dedicate his next term to opening the stage for more rivalry on the political scene. The presence of qualified candidates is necessary for elections to be meaningful.

The rhetoric, so far, is good. Let's see what kind of actions will back it up.