More important than parliamentary elections ... is what follows

Postponing parliamentary elections and a potentially weak parliament are not the only cause for concern

It's absurd that Egyptisthe only nation in the worldwithouta parliament because itis incapable ofissuingan elections law. There are countries thatlackparliaments because of civil wars, natural disasters, or regimes that won't allow representative bodies, and it may bethatelectionsarepostponed for the harvest, exams, fasts, or official holidays.
But for elections to be delayed for nearly a full year because the Egyptian stateand itsbattery ofministries, experts, consultants, and law professors simply cannot draft aconstitutionally compliant law,is altogethernoveland unfortunate.
A full year we have been running in circles overelectorallists, constituencies, districts, coalitions, medical disclosures,andcampaign regulations. The principal reason is that from the outset, the state chose an electoral system thatcontravenesthe constitution and is rejected by every political force because it will lead to a fragmented, weak parliament.
The system employs a winner-take-all list system that has no parallel anywherein the world because itfostersfragile partisan alliances,enables the state to manipulate outcomes,and is likely to result in an unrepresentativeparliament.
Evenafter theelectionlaw was declared unconstitutional, the state refused to comprehensivelyreconsiderthis electoral system, preferring instead to adopt a narrow approach of amendingonlythose articles annulled by the Supreme Constitutional Courtandmaking a few other cosmetic changes. Iteven referredthefileto the same legislative committee responsible forbringingustothisunfortunatepoint.
And when the prime minister called for a dialogue with political parties, state representativeshastilydeclaredthat the changes would be minimal,andtobe completed in a matter of days. Unfortunately the second round of dialogue was subpar,endingina scufflebetweensome attendees, prompting the extraordinary claim that the parties themselvesareto blamefortheelection delay, as if being invited to two meetingsis enough to bring representative politics to a standstill.
However, the postponed elections and a potentially weakparliamentare not the only cause for concern. Ultimately,allthe delays and blunders may have the more costly consequence ofextinguishingthe public'senthusiasm, interest,and confidence in politics and the veryidea of popular representation,the foundation of the modern democratic state.
While the debate raged over elections, the electoral law, districts, and listsover the past year, the state and its media persistently emphasized threeoverarchingmessages.
Firstlythat Egypt, being in the midst ofaneconomic recovery and a war on terror, could not afford the luxury of democracy, popular participation, and rights and liberties. We should therefore all just plow through this phase without protest or objection.
The second message was that at this critical juncture, Egypt needs only the people and a leader; everything else, from parties to civic associations and unions, is superfluous and only impedesdevelopment efforts and servesthe enemies of the nation.
The final message was that while parliament is an indispensable pillar of the constitutional order andthe roadmap of July 2013, the longer it was in coming, the betterpublic interest would be served byallowing important politicaland economic lawsto be issuedwithout elected representatives interfering in every detail and mucking up the process.
These threemessages were not alwaysleftimplicit.State spokespeopleexplicitly stated as much without hesitation or embarrassment, andthese claims wererepeatedbyvariousministers and officials in moments of astonishing frankness.
The sidelining ofparliament, the marginalisation of parties, and the suppression of dissident voices may indeed make governance easier, more efficient, and quicker thanwhenconsulting with parties, debating with the people's representatives, and listening to various perspectives. But theseareshort-term, ephemeralgains.Whatenablesthe state to win its battle against terrorism,invigoratethe economy, andmaketrueprogress is its ability tofoster a genuinenational consensus and mobilize resources to confront domestic challenges and external dangers.
But national consensusisnot a uniformity ofopinion, an unopposed leader, or an unaccountable government. This simplylendsthe illusion of agreement and concord. A strong society is one where multiple perspectives flourish and parties move in and out of government and opposition, where young people freely express their opinions, the media opens its pages and screens to various viewpoints, anda true national consensuscanis forgedwhere the state is supported by the people, and not only by the security and media apparatus.
Ultimately, an election law will be issued, a parliament will be elected, andthe roadmap will be completed. But whatever the shape of the coming parliament, thepriority for the government and partiesand the media that wish to see this country prosper is torevivethepeople'sconfidenceand faith in politicsand instill the beliefthat diversity and difference is strength andthatanabsolutiststatebrings neither development nor progress.
- Ziad Bahaa-Eldin holds a PhD in financial law from the London School of Economics. He is a former deputy prime minister, former chairman of the Egyptian Financial Supervisory Authority and former chairman of the General Authority for Investments.
This article was published in Arabic in El-Shorouq newspaper on Tuesday 14 April.
http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/128254.aspx