Limits of power

By Salama A Salama

---

The atmosphere surrounding the elections was such that voters felt it safer not to go to the polls. Despite judicial supervision voters' lists remained flawed and voting cards were handled in a chaotic way that encouraged irregularities. The only improvement was the use of transparent ballot boxes. People are not, however, inclined to risk life and limb just to drop a ballot in a see-through box.

Violence was not the only deterrent. The educated middle class stayed at home because they found it impossible to believe that after five decades of fraud things had changed. The emergence of new type of non-political candidate, rich people seeking a parliamentary seat for reasons unrelated to politics and willing to buy votes for money, was hardly encouraging. No wonder, then, that the turnout was as low as 20 per cent -- some say eight.

Those who did vote fall mainly into two broad categories. The first type comprises the poor who went to the polls under the vigilant eyes of thugs and racketeers. Such voters did not care who they voted for as long as they received a sum of cash in return. The second category, common in the countryside, included those who turned out to support a candidate from their family or clan. Then there were the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) supporters, organised and disciplined. There was also a protest vote, with some opting for the MB to spite the National Democratic Party.

No one can claim that the elections were about policy and programmes. The MB ran on slogans that appeal to the uneducated masses, though this cannot fully explain their outstanding performance. For its part, the NDP relied on government support and a myriad of promises. What the NDP forgot, however, is that there is a limit on the appeal of a party that has shown itself so reluctant to improve.

There are limits to power. The NDP has all the government's power and status behind it and yet its past makes it hard for the public to take it seriously. The MB has religious sentiments on its side, yet it does not have the credibility it seeks. The MB has done well in the elections, but its extraordinary performance has alienated Copts and, conceivably, foreign powers.

The 2005 elections were purely Egyptian, one has to admit. For all the irregularities they were held under judicial supervision. They were held according to laws and regulations formulated by Egyptians. And for all their differences the parties that contested the elections were Egyptian and patriotic. The elections were a stage post on a long and winding political road, and witnessed a renewal of long lost political pluralism.

One can have reservations about the elections and criticise the manner in which they were handled. But when all is said and done they represent an experience that deserves to be repeated and improved upon. We have learned several lessons over the year. We have learned that the monopoly of power is a recipe for corruption and political apathy. And we now know that we need a new formula for participation.

We need to admit that repressing religious currents does not weaken, but strengthens, them. We cannot afford to have religious groups operating beyond the pale of legitimacy. We cannot afford to have religious groups that grow in silence and prosper in the dark. This is a good time to re-think our ways. It is time to build a civil state and encourage the public to take part in reform.