With opposition parties either silenced or co-opted, the change Egypt so badly needs will hardly materialise, writes Michael Jansen
EGYPTIANS GO to the polls tomorrow at a time of considerable uncertainty for this vast country of 80 million people. A presidential election is due next year but incumbent Hosni Muba- rak is now 82, rumoured to be in failing health, and without a clear successor. He remains, unofficially, the only candidate.
Although groomed for the job, his son Gamal is unpopular with both the people and the military, which might settle on intelligence chief Omar Suleiman as caretaker until the succession is settled.
Some 5,200 candidates are standing for 508 seats, 64 re- served for women; 1,100 candidates are affiliated with 14 parties but 780 are official nominees of the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP); 4,100 are independents, although the overwhelming majority are NDP members who were not selected.
While the limit on expenditure is meant to be $35,000, many candidates have spent lavishly during the campaign, providing cash handouts and gifts of clothing, meat and rice to the poor.
There are 222 constituencies and 40,000 voting stations.
Security is tight and hundreds of thousands of civil servants have been mobilised to carry out the poll. But Egyptian and diplomatic sources predict that only 10 per cent of the 40 plus million Egyptians eligible to vote will actually cast their ballots.
Most have never even registered. They simply do not believe voting matters to them personally or to their country. They have no stake in the system.
Of those who do vote, dissident journalist Hisham Kassem said only 20 per cent cast their ballots according to their preferences.
Urban voters with government jobs and contracts and rural folk ruled by co-opted tribal leaders elect NDP stalwarts, he said. Since balloting is strictly monitored, the authorities can easily identify opponents. “Civil servants can lose their jobs and farmers government services if they do not vote as they are told,” he said.
In any case, opposition parties do not set out to seriously challenge the government. The Muslim Brotherhood, which is banned but allowed to back independents, did not support enough candidates to threaten the NDP’s game plan.
Regime loyalist Sayyed Badawi, Egypt’s Viagra king, mounted a coup in Egypt’s largest secular opposition party, the Wafd, once a major political player.
By installing Mr Badawi in the top job, the authorities sought to ensure that the Wafd, which they want to win most opposition seats, will follow the government line. Socialists and Nasserites, once powers in the land, have little money and no clout these days.
Veteran analyst Hani Shukrallah said opposition parties go along with the regime so they do not fade from the scene. Their main aim is to continue operating in the political arena in order to “create space” for independent expression and activity.
Consequently, most opposition groups, including the Brotherhood, insist that boycotts do not serve the interests of the opposition which must assert its presence on the political scene in order to remain relevant. Failure to participate risks demise.
Nobel laureate Muhammad ElBaradei, former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, did not take this into con- sideration when he returned home after retirement, created a reform movement, and called for a boycott by all opposition parties in order to transform the election into a no-contest event.
Muhammad Abou El-Ghar, a leading figure in this camp, said Dr ElBaradei’s supporters were deeply disappointed when he did not make the boycott cause his top priority by permanently residing in Egypt and launching a serious bid to take on the authorities.
While the government has angrily refused international observers to monitor the conduct of the election, the EU intends to dispatch staff from embassies represented in Cairo to observe voting and a range of independent Egyptian organisations are set to oversee polling.
Ghada Shahbender, member of the board of trustees of the independent Egyptian Organisation for Human Rights, stated: “This election will be more fraudulent than any we have witnessed. In 2005, the judiciary oversaw the elections. While some judges were involved in fraud, those who took part were better trained and better organised” than the low-level civil servants who are responsible for running this poll.
“They are trained to take orders and will do what they are told.” She predicted that policemen would stuff ballot boxes, intimidate voters and prevent them from reaching polling stations in areas where the Brotherhood is strong. She will be monitoring the election in a particularly violent constituency in the ancient port city of Alexandria where five years ago she was denied access to a station and threatened by a gang of thugs as she was leaving the area.
This Egyptian election cannot be compared with last March’s national assembly poll in Iraq or Lebanon’s June 2009 parliamentary election.
The Shia sectarian religious coalition that dominates the political scene in Iraq barred many secular, nationalist and former Baathist candidates from standing for office.
However, the election, in which more than 65 per cent of registered voters took part, was certified as generally free and fair. The party that gained most seats was secular nationalist Iraqiya, to the chagrin of incumbent prime minister Nuri al-Maliki who undemocratically refused to recognise the result and permit Iraqiya’s head, Ayad Allawi to make the first try to form a cabinet.
By insisting on returning to his post for more than eight months, Mr Maliki was finally asked to name a new government. By contrast with the Iraq poll, Lebanon’s June 2009 parliamentary election was flagrantly and overtly rigged. Nevertheless 55 per cent of registered voters cast ballots and the country as a whole accepted the skewed outcome of the popular consultation.
Ms Shahbender remarked, “There will be change [in Egypt] because there must be change. This farce is sad for our country and sad for our future.”