The return of the ballot box is not enough

Holding free and fair elections is a great achievement, but Egypt also needs a strong opposition and a parliament that represents all sections of society

It is our right, and even our duty, to congratulate ourselves on the return of the ballot box to the political domain after a long absence. It has been sixty years since the last genuine elections were held in 1951. The problem with the elections of the July regime was not only that they were rigged in favour of regime loyalists, but that there was an absence of any genuine competition because political forces were banned from forming political parties. All the parties that were formed under the July regime, beginning with the Liberation Organisation, through the National Union, the Socialist Union, the Misr Party, and the National Democratic Party, were not genuine parties but rather a civic front for the military regime to rule, as witnessed during the 1950s and 1960s, or for a police/military regime as experienced since the 1990s.
The pitiful opposition parties that have appeared on the periphery of the scene since the 1970s were never allowed to aspire to reach power, but rather to remain in the opposition forever. This made them quasi-parties or non-parties, since by definition a party is an organised group in pursuit of power. The people did not need political scientists to tell them the irrelevance of the electoral process, and hence there was an inverted relationship between income and voting in elections. Those with higher incomes refrained from voting, while some who were less wealthy participated in the process in search of “election income.”
Of course there were exceptions, such as groups or individuals who are activists and fighters, swimming against the current, insisting on participating in mock elections in an effort to reduce voting fraud, or to ensure that some honest candidates win seats in parliament, or to interact with the masses during electoral campaigns.
Elections during the monarchy were sometimes a genuine forum for political combat. If the crown decided not to rig the elections, they gave the winning party (the Wafd) the mandate to form the cabinet. In contrast, the elections under the July regime did not prompt any change in the cabinet or those in power, but was a means to rejuvenate the civic front behind which military, police and intelligence agencies maintained power. It was also a tool to contain the opposition by giving them some posts, so they could vent the frustration and anger of the masses.
With the blood of martyrs, sacrifices of the injured and the sweat of activists since the 1950s until now – and with the participation of millions of the sons and daughters of this country – parliamentary elections have returned to Egypt. Good for us. The question now is how we can sustain this achievement and build on it. I believe that the road to this goal primarily requires increasing the power of parliament to represent all sectors in society.
In order for us to have a strong parliament and in order for this parliament to maintain a pivotal role in the political process, it must become a genuine forum of representation of social forces and political groups. A parliament that lacks these elements is a fragile one that could collapse or disintegrate because if the true forces in society do not find a place in parliament, they will seek alternate forums and create other centres of political power and undermine parliament.
This is what happened in July, 1952. The only explanation for the quick collapse of parliament on July 23 is that the major players were not represented in parliament, and therefore supported the coup by the Free Officers. The parliament ofPachas did not include representatives of the growing labour movement, or the small farmers, or the nascent political forces such as the Islamists, leftists and Misr Al-Fatah.
The parliament of 2011 will be more representative than the one that fell in 1952 because it will include the major political forces in the country, the Islamists. But the problem is that there are many social and political groups that will be absent in parliament or will only find a place on the periphery. The lower classes, mainly the workers and small farmers, will not be truly represented, despite the rule that 50 per cent of seats must go to farmers and workers. This is either because the law allows non-workers and non-farmers to compete for these seats, or because the structure of labour and farming unions is so debilitated that it is difficult to cultivate enough candidates from labour and farmer ranks to compete in the elections. Another reason could be the result of the smoke from sectarian battles that engulfed the political scene, instead of material interests.
Socialist and social democracy currents will also be disenfranchised in the 2011 parliament. It is true that these groups are mostly responsible for their disenfranchisement because of weakness in their doctrine and organisation, while unions are fragile. This does not help these currents, which are mainly based on expressing the interests of work unions. But it is also true that lax enforcement by the Supreme Election Committee and state authorities of laws capping campaign spending, put these less wealthy groups – including the left – at a disadvantage.
Women are probably the biggest losers in the elections. After years of banishment and marginalisation in the public arena through sometimes subtle measures, as well as gruff and shocking means at other times (such as sexual harassment), the election law did not attempt to genuinely give women a fair chance. Party lists were required to include only one female without requiring her to be in a leading position, which resulted in women coming at the end of the majority of party lists. The outcome thus far is that only one woman, Sanaa Al-Saeed, won a seat on the list of the Egyptian Social Democratic Party in Assiut.
As for the youth, unfortunately the thousands of young politicians who entered politics after the glorious January revolution will remain on the periphery in the new parliament. Naturally, official and party politics need more time to incorporate this large number of young politicians, but an electoral system that does not strictly enforce the law capping campaign spending and a party law that requires 5,000 signatories to create a party and advertisements in newspapers, short changed many youth who do not have the funds to launch new parties or afford elaborate electoral campaigns.
The fact that the new parliament will not represent many sectors in society places a major responsibility on the shoulders of existing forces to draft a new political system that addresses these shortcomings, and the rules of engagement in the political game in order to create genuine equal opportunities and open the door for better representation in the future for all marginalised sectors in the 2011 parliament. These shortcomings also require majority political forces in parliament to remain humble and realise that their sweeping victory in elections is not only the result of a wide popular base and hard work over the past years, but also because the rules of the game were in their favour, as was the hard line sectarian political environment inherited from the Mubarak regime. In addition, the authorities did not adamantly enforce laws banning anyone from using religious rhetoric during campaigning or maligning opponents using sectarian terms.
No one in their right mind can deny that the Islamist trend is the strongest political current in Egypt right now, and that the majority of the people want to test them in power. Having them in power would open the door to political evolution which has long been suppressed, and it is now time to set it free. But the nascent democracy in Egypt cannot be stable without a strong opposition which would prevent the creation of another tyrannical regime, or without applying fair rules to the political game that would satisfy political forces about the outcome of the elections.
Unfortunately, this will not be accomplished in these elections. It is also the menace we must address in the present and work to avoid in the future.