Finding the right path

It doesn't stop with an elected president. Real reform means preparing the country for full and effective participation, writes Amin Howeidi*

---

Egypt was governed by dynastic rule throughout the reigns of Mohamed Ali Pasha and his successors until the July 1952 Revolution brought an end to the monarchical system. In the post-1952 phase, rule was founded upon revolutionary legitimacy and the constitutions that gave it legal substance. Then, on 7 September 2005, after fielding himself against nine other presidential candidates, Hosni Mubarak was elected to serve a fifth term, ending September 2011. For the first time, Mubarak was elected through a direct poll, as opposed to the four previous occasions when his presidency was confirmed by popular referendum in accordance with the 1980 constitution. That constitution also permitted for the indefinite renewal of presidential terms, whereas the 1974 constitution before that had limited the number of terms a president could serve to two.

In every historic period, the structure of government is shaped by circumstances and conditions specific to that time, including those that may determine whether or not force is brought into play in the transfer of power. Similarly, every period, regardless of the diversity of those who held the reigns of power, has its own successes and failings. We have now embarked on a period in which the people have been empowered with the transfer of authority, a power they exercised for the first time in their history through multi-candidate direct presidential elections. This unprecedented process for the rotation of power has brought us into uncharted territory. We might find a safe and secure path that can be followed with confidence by future generations or to an impasse before which those same generations will stand helpless and confused.

I am certain we all pray for God's guidance to bring us to the former -- the path that moves with, and not against, the forward tides of history. We cannot revert to dynastic succession, and presidential referendums must now be relegated to the past. The people must retain the right to choose their own leaders and they must be guaranteed the full freedoms to do so. The responsibility for making this a permanent reality falls upon us all, now that the opportunity has presented itself. The door has been flung open and it is our task to prevent anyone from closing it again. I hope that all political forces share this conviction and are equally determined to work together rather than to manoeuvre against one another.

On the basis of the foregoing principle, I would like to make certain observations. The duty of electoral supervisory committees is to ensure that every individual with the right to vote has the power to exercise this right fully and freely; for this is the only way to guarantee an accurate reflection of the will of the people and to ascertain that they remain the source of power. To restrict the performance of this honourable duty solely to a group of judges is unreasonable. On the one hand, all citizens are equal in rights and duties; on the other, no one group can claim to be pure and flawless. With my greatest respect to our country's judges, our faith in other sectors of society remains just as strong and unshakeable. These are no less capable of the essential sense of good judgement, integrity and commitment necessary for the performance of the various duties involved in monitoring the electoral process. In addition, it would be regretful for the type of electoral regularities that we seek to prevent to tarnish a body that we would like to keep as free from taint as possible.

Proceeding from this point to the heart of the matter, our progress in the forthcoming period will be governed by several considerations. The first is that, in accordance with the amended Article 76 of the constitution, in the next presidential elections no political party will be able to field a candidate unless it controls a minimum of five per cent of the People's Assembly, or 28 seats. The second is that the forthcoming parliamentary elections in November are being held under the unaltered provisions of the current constitution, provisions that are inconsistent with the legislative changes that have taken place. There is not sufficient time left before the parliamentary elections to introduce the much needed amendments, which means that the forthcoming parliament will have been elected on the basis of constitutional provisions that are in the process of revision.

The third and related problem is that the chances are that a parliament elected under the current conditions will not be able to produce the multiplicity of candidates for the next presidential elections, which would augur poorly for our aspirations for democratisation. It is incontestable that the recent elections rippled the long stagnant waters in our political life and revived energies that had once foresworn political involvement. However, that same process also held many disturbing signs. Above all, the National Democratic Party (NDP) candidate faced no serious competition; he came out six million votes ahead of the runner up and some contestants trailed so far behind that they received no more than a four-figure vote. If the next presidential campaigns are to be truly competitive, there must be a filtering process that would eliminate political party lists that do not receive a certain level of support, thereby reducing the competition to two or three major parties.

A fourth difficulty was embodied in the 23 per cent turnout of registered voters in the presidential elections. I was surprised at how blithely some shrugged off this figure, arguing that what was important was that the victor obtained the majority of the votes cast, whereas to me that turnout rate was indicative of the failure of the ruling party. The NDP candidate may have won 88.5 per cent of the votes cast, but the 77 per cent of the electorate that stayed at home cannot be interpreted as a sign of consent. In the last referendum on President Mubarak in 1999, voter turnout was 79 per cent, according to a recent Associated Press article, which attributed the plunge in voter turnout to widespread scepticism over the possibility of effecting substantial democratic reform in Egypt.

Against this backdrop of potential difficulties, indeed, minefields, the president- elect will be sworn in before the People's Assembly on 27 September 2005, with the prime minister tendering his resignation, as the constitution requires. It is then up to us to determine how things should proceed in the forthcoming phase, which may last up to a year and which should be regarded as the phase in which we take the preparatory measures that will lead us out of our current predicament. I believe that we should set as our priorities the creation of a constitutional review committee and a committee charged with drafting the charter determining our form of government. Then, we must turn our attention to the government that oversees the transition. This process may entail successive phases overseen by different prime ministers each chosen on the basis of his ability to best fulfil what is required at a particular stage. Throughout this all, we must bear in mind that there is a fundamental difference between government and governance, the former representing the idea and the latter its dynamics in action. The two have to work together if our national eagle is to take flight.

* The writer is former minister of defense and chief of intellegence.