The Pharaohs’ democracy [Archives:2005/905/Opinion]
Atif Awad*
*An Egyptian journalist and a short-story writer residing in Yemen
In an unprecedented and unique manner, Egyptians wanted to choose their representatives in Parliament and the legislative body via a clean democratic selection process. They wanted to see all Egyptian classes take part in the process. For many reasons, these classes have been left out of the process of Egyptian reality and movement during the past three decades. Throughout this time, Egyptians have become more prone to negativity about their non-participation in deciding their future and the future of their country. They have become rather more fearful and aloof from affiliation with and engagement in Egyptian political life, but not to the ruling party, to avoid accusation of betrayal and infidelity or foreign treachery. Many generations have grown up under this type of fear and as university and even graduate students, they are considered frivolous. Those who ventured to get involved in politics deserved to be punished. Restrictions and relevant regulations were used in this regard. Therefore, students and youth, who are the fuel and energy of political life, preferred to distance themselves from joining a political party or movement that they believe expresses their pursuit, vision and ideology.
Nevertheless, for one reason or another, the ruling party wanted to hold decent elections, not just a sincere call for Egyptians to take part. With them, they could select parliament members without fear and make Egyptian democracy an example to follow. The assumption is to be a transparent, free example for the region's nations to follow. The hope is that democracy then will prevail in the Middle East's Arab, Islamic and Christian countries.
To attain this goal, Egypt amended legislation prevalent since before the 1914 British mandate on Egypt. Under this legislative amendment, which preceded the latest elections by several months, the judiciary became supervisor of the electoral process instead of the Interior Ministry, as was always the case. Many observers view this as an important change. Regardless of the extent of Egyptian judges' acceptance and boundaries for overseeing elections, in order to secure decency in the elections, accuracy in judiciary supervision and ruling party argument, elections were organized in three phases. Accordingly, Egypt's 25 governorates were distributed over these three phases. The first phase of Egyptian parliamentary elections was unexpected by ruling party politicians. Theorists and directors of the ruling party's political elite had not considered negative results, although Muslim Brotherhood was expected to win. Muslim Brotherhood is the only undeclared party on the Egyptian political map to face the ruling party. For many reasons, the current Muslim Brotherhood must be a headstrong counterpart capable of standing strongly before the ruling party that has ruled Egypt for a long time and in which most of its leaders have become inflexible. Muslim Brotherhood gained a victory that angered and embarrassed high-ranking officials of the ruling National Democratic Party, a matter which caused the party's political elite to reconsider arrangements to guarantee the party's win in the second stage of elections. As much as possible, they kept the transparent democratic form in all the governorates in that stage. There was a hint about manipulating the second polling process in a few polling stations, provided it would not be apparent that the ruling party adopted such a dirty approach.
The second phase again surprised the ruling party, although it was not a surprise to any observer of affairs in Egyptian society. The real surprise was not only that Muslim Brotherhood for the second time reaped a large number of votes, as was the case in the first phase of elections. Rather, Muslim Brotherhood prepared itself to challenge the ruling party's powerful figures in a manner they could not imagine. As polling boxes closed in the second phase, it became clear that the electoral battle resulted in indisputable facts and realities.
Among these facts is that Egyptian election of representatives in parliament, in all phases, was between two parties: Muslim Brotherhood and the National Democratic Party, the ruling party. The matter and preparation of each to defeat the other could not be realized in keeping with the decent democratic form and example, but even led to breaking each other's bones. Such was the case in the third phase of the polling process. Each prepared for the other by bullying, confrontation and limitless crime, even if it meant violating the judiciary and those who mistakenly believed the game of decency in voting and democracy.
From this democratic experiment, the Pharaohs dominated to win it from the only other competitor in the arena.
Those who did not want either of the two parties composing this democratic process may ask some questions. Have the Egyptian voters been involved in this democratic game? Was Muslim Brotherhood's winning of so many People's Council seats a realistic expression of the number of its Egyptian followers? Was the loss of the National Democratic Party due to the actual power and ability of its adversary or those who sided with its adversary simply taking a stand in vexation against it and its hegemony, thus taking revenge upon it by standing with Muslim Brotherhood despite not sharing its ideological identity? Are elections and voting the only system of democracy and all its phases?
These are questions seemingly derived from this experiment that was to the standard of the Pharaohs' democracy. Therefore, I do not think and I am rather sure that none will follow suit except those who are Pharaohs of democracy.
——
[archive-e:905-v:14-y:2005-d:2005-12-22-p:opinion]
