Post-election questions

By Salama A Salama

---

In drawing up the balance sheet for 2005 we cannot overlook gains and losses in Egypt's democratic reform process. President Hosni Mubarak kicked off the issue with his surprise announcement early last year calling for direct multi-candidate presidential elections. Competitive presidential elections took place, in spite of the harsh criticisms levelled at the lack of equal opportunity among candidates.

Parliamentary elections followed soon afterwards, although they also were marred by shortcomings. Not only did opposition forces have insufficient time to mount effective campaigns, they also encountered restrictions. Worse yet, arrangements for judicial supervision -- the technology needed to register voters and other measures necessary to ensure the integrity of the polls -- were so deficient that balloting failed to meet the minimum internationally recognised criteria of transparency and fairness.

In addition, neither inducements nor threats succeeded in drawing a majority of the populace to the polls. General apathy and mistrust instilled by decades of electoral fraud and rigging could not vanish overnight. As a result, more than 75 per cent of the electorate stayed home in both elections.

If low turnout made little difference to the presidential elections -- since conditions were such as to ensure that the NDP candidate would win -- the same did not apply to the parliamentary polls. Here, low turnout both exposed how poorly the NDP managed its campaign and enhanced the prospects of Muslim Brotherhood candidates. When, after the first round of balloting, it became apparent that the Brotherhood would win more parliamentary seats than anticipated, the NDP resorted to its old bag of tricks: hired voter gangs, closing down polling stations and, on occasion, beating up judicial monitors. Little wonder "thuggery" became the byword for the parliamentary elections, in the course of which more than 10 people died.

Yet, in spite of the scandal, there is no doubt that these electoral experiences had a profound effect on the public. They awakened people's interest in politics, held as they were beneath the intensive glare of the media. It was refreshing also to see civil society organisations demand the right to monitor the polls, which they were granted to some extent. And the honourable role the judges played in exposing electoral violations and refusing to cave in to pressure to cover them up was heartening.

However, did the elections achieve their aims? Did they strengthen the hold of democracy? Did they propel the political reform process towards political plurality?

The electoral returns do not support affirmative answers. The ruling party continues to dominate the People's Assembly. In addition, none of the official opposition parties succeeded in securing the five per cent quota of seats required to be able to field a candidate in the next presidential elections. Meanwhile, although the still officially banned Muslim Brotherhood won 20 per cent of the seats, any nominee it hoped to field as an independent in the next presidential elections would never win the necessary quota of signatures needed from the Shura Council or municipal councils in order to qualify.

Furthermore, the recently elected People's Assembly is far from representative. Copts and women have practically no voice in it. An intermittent theme in the course of the elections was the controversy surrounding Ayman Nour. The persistent hounding of this opposition figure, and candidate in the presidential elections, stirred harsh international criticism and added a bitter taste to the electoral climate. One cannot help but wonder at the coincidence that the Nour hearings concluded with a guilty verdict in the immediate aftermath of the elections.

With such inauspicious beginnings people have the right to wonder whether this parliament will meet the public's hopes for legislative and constitutional reforms and, indeed, whether it will even live out its term.