Exposing rifts

The third round of national dialogue meetings witnessed a widening of the gap between the opposition and ruling party, reports Gamal Essam El-Din

---

Click to view caption

The first session of the national dialogue attended by Nour (second from left) after his release

Sunday's demonstrations, held to mark the second anniversary of the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, quickly turned into a confrontation between opposition activists and supporters of the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP), not least over the pace of political reform.

For opposition leaders participating in the third round of national dialogue with the NDP on 15 March frustration with reform initiatives, the constitutional amendment proposed by President Hosni Mubarak notwithstanding, was palpable. They consider the amendment a step forward but say serious problems remain. NDP officials, for their part, insisted the dialogue meeting be restricted to exploring opposition views of Article 76.

"Discussing the constitution as a whole," said NDP Assistant Secretary-General Kamal El- Shazli, "is not the dialogue's business."

The dialogue, claimed El-Shazli, is concerned with reviewing amendments the opposition leaders propose to Article 76 and no more. Opposition amendment proposals, he continued, will be referred to the People's Assembly Constitutional Committee for final drafting.

"After 9 April," said parliamentary speaker Fathi Sorour, "the committee will start holding a series of sessions to discuss all the proposals submitted." These sessions, Sorour added, will continue for one month -- or until 9 May.

"After 9 May a report on the discussions will be presented to the Shura Council to be debated and referred back to the assembly for a final vote."

In his 26 February proposal President Mubarak argued any amendment of Article 76 must enshrine three principles: presidential hopefuls must obtain the backing of a quorum of elected MPs in the People's Assembly and Shura Council and elected members of municipal councils; a commission of judicial and political figures must oversee the presidential election, and the election itself should take place in just one day.

The opposition argues that the selection criteria for presidential candidates is too restrictive. Although the fine print of the first restriction has yet to be made public the opposition believes it effectively bans them from standing in presidential election.

"Although NDP officials say only existing political parties will be allowed to field candidates," says Noaman Gomaa, the leader of the Wafd Party, "we believe that this is not enough."

"They say this will be applicable only in 2005, and that in subsequent elections candidates will have to secure the backing of 20 per cent of elected MPs and members of municipal councils," said Gomaa.

Rifaat El-Said, chairman of the leftist Tagammu Party, maintains that there should be no stipulation demanding the support of a fixed number of elected MPs.

"If the NDP insists on a numerical restriction it should apply to ordinary voters, say the support of 50,000 or 70,000, rather than to MPs or elected members of municipal councils," El- Said said.

The NDP's stipulation, says Gomaa, will void President Mubarak's proposal of any meaning. "Such stipulations make it impossible for any opposition or independent hopefuls to run for the presidency given that parliament and councils are packed with members of the NDP," Gomaa said.

On the second restriction the opposition joined forces to reject NDP suggestions that the committee entrusted with overseeing the presidential election include Fathi Sorour, speaker of the People's Assembly, and Safwat El-Sherif, speaker of the Shura Council.

"The inclusion of Sorour and El-Sherif undermines the committee's impartiality," El-Said said. Instead, the opposition wants an independent committee to oversee the election from A to Z.

"NDP officials must know that the rejection of this proposal could open the door to foreign intervention and pressure," argued El-Said.

That elections take place in a single day "is important to avoid any kind of instability", says El-Shazli. The opposition, one the other hand, believes that it will be impossible to find enough judges to supervise polling stations. "There are not enough judges in Egypt to cover all polling stations in one day," El-Said said. "It would be better to hold the elections in three stages."

The 1972 law regulating the performance of the People's Assembly was another point of contention between the opposition and NDP. The NDP wants October's parliamentary elections to be held on the basis of individual candidacy. While conceding such a system creates fertile ground for bullying and vote-buying, El- Shazli argues it remains preferable to the alternatives. "It creates a closer relationship between voters and candidates and enables the electorate to choose their representatives in a fairly simple way." Besides, El-Shazli added, "it strikes a balance between independent candidates and candidates from political parties."

At least four opposition parties beg to disagree, arguing that a slate system would be better. According to El-Said, lists allow voters a greater role in exercising their political rights. "Individual candidacies," says El-Said, "allow voters to elect a single candidate while lists allow them to choose a number." This, he argued, provides an obstacle to vote-buying, rigging and intimidation.

The slate system was twice declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Constitutional Court in the 1980s on the grounds it discriminated against independent candidates.