Nothing less will do
Ibrahim Nafie reviews the debate over regulations governing the nomination of candidates for the presidency
Since President Hosni Mubarak called for the amendment of constitutional Article 76 to provide for multi-candidate presidential elections there has been a lively debate over what precisely this amendment should entail. That a diverse group of politicians, intellectuals, lawyers, syndicate representatives, journalists and others have engaged in this debate is a healthy phenomenon. It reflects the widespread awareness of the significance of this step in the context of the process of comprehensive reform.
More importantly, it is indicative of a general agreement that constructive dialogue is the best means to address the vital issues that we face. I believe that if we sustain this spirit we will soon be able to reach a national consensus over a comprehensive vision for reform and development that will see us once again in step with the epoch, though in a way that compromises neither Egypt's specific needs nor the character of its society.
Debate over the amendment of Article 76, for the most part, has focussed on conditions of candidacy. While one camp favours loosening restrictions as much as possible, allowing anyone to step forward as a candidate, the opposing camp urges stringent controls in order to preserve the prestige and integrity of the office of president. To me it is the middle road that will strike the balance we need.
First, however, I would like to rule out the idea proposed by some that all a prospective candidate would have to do to field himself for the presidential elections is to obtain a certain number of signatures from eligible voters. This idea is potentially dangerous since it opens the door to the possible purchase of signatures. Nothing could be better guaranteed to cheapen the nomination process to the highest office in the land than turning it into something akin to a public auction.
More importantly, it will render the office of president vulnerable to foreign influence for there is no doubt that outside agencies will seek to pour vast sums behind the candidate or party they feel best serves their interests. The experience of many South American countries in this regard should alert us to the very real and grave perils of implementing such an idea.
A safer alternative is for prospective candidates to obtain the support of a certain percentage of the members of elected bodies, such as the Peoples Assembly and Shura Council, or municipal councils. Here, too, opinions vary, with some quoting a figure as high as 20 per cent and others as low as 10. When considering this proposal we should bear in mind that People's Assembly elections and the mid-term Shura Council elections are just around the corner and that municipal councils are plentiful.
Eligibility contingent on a certain percentage of support from elected MPs is practised by many democracies in the world. The question, therefore, is to arrive at a reasonable ratio, one that would not be too high as to obstruct potential candidates but not so low that we render the presidency vulnerable to foreign infiltration. I would suggest 15 per cent of members of parliament and between 350 to 400 municipal council members, bearing in mind that there are 3,250 municipal councilors across the country.
In all events, I feel certain that the parties involved in the current hearings on this issue will be able to agree to an appropriate solution. More immediately, I would like to stress how important it is that legal parties be exempted from this condition in the forthcoming presidential elections and, perhaps, the 2010 elections. It is vital at this point in the process of political reform that these parties have an opportunity to field those candidates they feel can best run for the presidency.
In a similar vein, I strongly disagree with the suggestion that parties should have representatives currently sitting in the Peoples Assembly or Shura Council in order to field a candidate. This, and similar proposals for restrictions that would disqualify some existing parties from fielding candidates are discriminatory. If a party has obtained the right to exist and pursue its activities, it should be treated the same as other parties.
Equally, if not more, important for forthcoming and future presidential elections is the question of the composition and powers of the supervising electoral committee. In order to ensure its impartiality this body must comprise a combination of the holders of high judicial office and public figures whose integrity and non-partisanship is beyond question. These members can elect their own president. There should also be a constitutional provision stating that the decisions of this body are final and not subject to appeal.
As the function of the committee will be to supervise the electoral process from the moment nominations open until the returns are announced, it must be accorded full powers to administer and monitor every aspect of the elections, including campaign funding. There can be no question of anything less than full and autonomous judicial supervision of the elections.
Finally, the presidential elections should be held on a single day. There is no conceivable reason why they should drag on for a week, when we have the personnel and machinery to hold them in a single day and are able to ensure the necessary judicial supervision.
Al-Ahram Weekly Online : Located at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/739/op1.htm