Dr. Hazem Beblawi

ِA Wake Up Call

A Wake Up Call

Hazem El Beblawi

For many Egyptians, 2005 is the election year, par excellence. After a presidential election in September, another legislative one followed two months later. The whole show was presented under the banner of a new era of democracy and pluralism. The outcome, if not totally disappointing, remains, nonetheless, far below expectations. Much ink has been poured in evaluating the results of these elections and their significance. This, however, is no time for regret or recrimination. Let us be more positive and look at the brighter side of the picture.

But first of all, we have to agree on the main characteristics of the elections both presidential and parliamentary.

For the presidential one, it seems that the change from a referendum to an election system proved to be immaterial. President Mubarak won the election with more than 80% of the vote, much in line with what he used to achieve in the previous referenda. Except for a new look, the campaign was banal, and more entertaining than a real contest. Perhaps the reason resides in the fact that the President took everyone, including his own party, by surprise. He declared that amending the Constitution is not on the agenda. Few days later, he submitted his proposal to amend Article 76 of the Constitution. The change caught everyone unguarded, except, of course, the incumbent himself.

The parliamentary election is a different story. Everyone knew, of course, that it was coming. But there was a change in the overall climate. It was agreed that there is a need for some transparency in the election process and more tolerance towards the Muslim Brothers, many of whom were released a few days before the election. The changes included the participation (reluctantly) of the civil society’s organisations in the electoral process, the use of glass boxes and the overall supervision of the judicial bodies. All this gave the whole operation a new taste.

The results of the election, while not entirely unexpected, took many people, the government included, by surprise. We can refer to the most salient outcomes as follows:

i.                The National Democratic party (NDP), in spite of overwhelming governmental support, suffered from a flagrant disapproval by the electorate. This was particularly obvious in the case of the official candidates of the NDP. The party had to accept the humiliating readmission of their deserted members who won the election.

ii.              The secular opposition parties received a no less humiliating slap from the public. Prominent figures among them lost their long held seats.

iii.             Perhaps, the only winner is the unauthorised party (Muslim Brothers). They presented less than one third of candidates and seem to amass almost one fifth of the seats. What if they ran in all constituencies?

iv.            Regardless of who is running, the election witnessed a higher level of irregularity, corruption and the use (in fact abuse) of money and even of brutal violence. Both the NDP and the Muslim Brothers shared, probably equally, in the responsibility for these irregularities. The police and the security forces were not always as neutral or effective as one would expect.

v.              The rate of participation in the election is particularly low. Only one in four took part, the majority of the population remained aloof.

With these outcomes, what conclusions is one supposed to draw?

Perhaps the first test will be about the new amendment of Article 76. This amendment was subject to a wide controversy and it seems that it has come to deadlock. With such a new parliament, the NDP would stand as the only political party eligible to present a candidate for the next Presidential election. This will be a serious setback for the government’s claim of a presidential election among several candidates. Eventually, Muslim Brothers, as independents, would also be able to present their candidate. This would constitute an odd situation for the NDP; i.e. to chose between a single NDP candidate for the presidency, or else to face a competition with an independent candidate from the Muslim Brothers. With such a nightmare scenario, it is more than probable that the new Article 76 of the Constitution will have to fade into oblivion. Thus, Article 76 which seemed to have been tailor-made to fit some aspirants to the post, will end up short-lived. Indeed, its fate is doomed.

Regardless of the Article 76, the rise of Muslim Brothers has aroused a wave of fear of a potential take-over by a militant Islamic regime. The Islamic tide in many places has created a mood of apprehension among substantial sections of the society. This does not mean that the Muslim Brothers, if they win the election, would necessarily establish a militant Khomeni-type regime. They actually deny this accusation, affirming that they are bound by the democratic rules. But the doubt is there, and you cannot dissipate these doubts simply by verbal denials. After all, fear is one of the deepest human instincts.

The new election is in fact a serious challenge to both Muslim Brothers and their opponents of liberal traditions. Muslim Brothers have to prove their sincerity and commitment to the democratic process. They need to present their credentials of moderation and realism. The secular parties have to join their forces and mobilise the dormant elements of the society and bring them back to the political arena. They need to show dynamism and to appeal to the public. All this will bring more vitality to the political life in Egypt.

The last elections, both Presidential and Legislative, will have the merit of bringing back life to politics. Over the last fifty years, politics has been relegated to the background. With the hope of Muslim Brothers to reach power on the one side, and fears of the civil forces in their defence of the secular values on the other side, politics is moving again to the foreground. With the fears of the ones and the hopes of the others, the body politics would vibrate once more after long demise

The last election, with all its shortcomings, could also be benevolent, it is a wake up call for everyone. It is an eye-opener; ballot absenteeism is in fact very costly. This is the time for each citizen to assume his role. People have grown up and should rise to their responsibilities.

www.hazembeblawi.com                                             

 Al Ahram Weekly 2.2.2006