Thorough failure

By Samia Farid Shihata

---

I don't remember which TV commentator said it, but he certainly said it all when he described the performance of the Presidential Elections Commission (PEC) as "appalling". While other principal actors -- notably supervising judges and the police -- came out in a positive light, the PEC appeared unprofessional, un- transparent, arbitrary, inefficient and inconsistent.

For starters, it failed in its primary responsibility of making sure voter lists were updated and in alphabetical order, causing much confusion in polling stations and depriving many of their right to vote. Furthermore, it issued ambiguous election rules that led to an atmosphere of confusion and uncertainty. What was the PEC thinking when it refused to allow Egyptian non-governmental organisations to monitor the elections? What was it thinking when it discarded more than 1,000 sorely needed judges from the list of election supervisors at a time when it had to consolidate polling stations due to insufficient numbers of judges?

What was it thinking when it failed to ensure that candidates obtained voter lists early enough to arrange to have observers in place at all polling stations? What was it thinking when it did not give supervising judges the phosphoric ink three days before the elections to make sure they had time to test it? What was it thinking when it changed the rules during elections day and allowed some people to vote without an electoral card?

Finally, what was it thinking when it quickly and summarily dismissed all allegations of irregularities which the public had witnessed first hand and on TV all day? Clearly, a more deliberative investigation of voter complaints would have imparted the requisite credibility to the process, even if the conclusion expected by most was that the irregularities did not materially alter the results of the elections.

This week's Soapbox speaker is an independent economic consultant.