Strong Egypt Party Chairman Mohamed Abul-Fotouh, a former senior official in the Muslim Brotherhood and former candidate in the 2012 presidential elections, has recently proposed an initiative that he has described as “a vision” for emerging from the current political crisis in the country. The initiative has stirred a few criticisms and some support, but has mostly led to a barrage of accusations, as though public discussion in Egypt has to give prevalence to charges of treason and heresy or to insults and to perpetuate a state of fear of other views, even ones that will never be put into effect or that will never win the approval of the majority of the people. Abul-Fotouh's proposal consisted of two parts. One was rights-related and was inspired by the concept of transitional justice. It called for compensation for the victims of abuses and measures to promote rights and freedoms such as “the immediate release of all persons held under preventative detention orders who have not been found guilty on charges of terrorism and murder and the immediate release of students, women and the elderly who are under preventative detention orders and are suffering from health problems.” He also proposed a review of “all sentences passed against those convicted in the recent period and the promulgation of a general amnesty for the leaders of all opposition movements who have not been proven to have been involved in crimes on the basis of clear and public evidence.” He called for “comprehensive reconciliation” based on the principle of justice which “permits compensation based on consent as opposed to coercion and force.” And he underscored the need to apply a “charter of journalistic honour” in the media and government and political party press “in a manner that safeguards freedoms and prevents the dissemination of hatred or incitement”. The rights-related portion of the proposal would most likely meet the approval of most opposition members and some supporters of the government. The major problem comes with the second portion of Abul-Fotouh's proposal, which calls for holding early presidential elections. This one could describe as a consummately Muslim Brotherhood notion and one totally divorced from reality. The Al-Tahrir newspaper, which published Abul-Fotouh's proposal as an article together with a commentary by Anwar Al-Hawari, dismissed that portion of it out of hand. One might disagree with President Abdel-Fattah Al-Sisi on many things, apart from the “heroic role” he played in the 30 June Revolution (which the Strong Egypt Party calls a “coup”) in releasing Egypt from Muslim Brotherhood rule, Al-Hawari wrote, adding that al-Sisi's legitimacy as elected president was “beyond discussion,” which is also the opinion of a majority of the Egyptian people who continue to support him enthusiastically. However, surely in any country that wants to become democratic it is the right of all trends of opinion to call for early presidential elections without being labelled “traitors” or “foreign proxies,” even if the demand is not realised or the results envisioned are impossible to attain as the ballot box would in any case favour Al-Sisi in the first round. Accordingly, the response to the Strong Egypt Party chairman should not be to try to bring him around to the point of view that supports the entire course of the 30 June Revolution. Rather, it should address the “hypothetical measure” of early elections and the effect these would have on the country's political and democratic process. Let's imagine what could happen were we to hold early presidential elections in which the Muslim Brothers took part with their current mindset and terrorist rhetoric facing off against an opposing mindset and rhetoric that regards them as an occupation power that needs to be eradicated. The result of electoral campaigns and political mobilisation under the current state of division and tension would be unmitigated civil strife. The first prerequisite for building any democratic order is the existence of a political consensus over a system of constitutional and legal values. This condition is currently absent in Egypt, regardless of who is responsible. There has never been a case in which elections where the political contenders do nothing but eye their rivals as traitors, proxies and coup-makers has been able to build a democracy. Certainly, the political process in Egypt has faltered and the political system has made mistakes, while the country's political parties and forces are extremely weak (again, regardless of who is responsible). Moreover, a large segment of the public believes that parliament and the political parties have hampered or would hamper the efforts of the president and that “politics” had nearly plunged the country into the grip of anarchy and collapse. The outlook of the government is not remote from this view, as it shares a similar rhetoric and may even have participated in promoting it. Therefore, it is impossible to imagine any acceptance, even hypothetically, of the idea of early presidential elections in Egypt or any challenge to the legitimacy of the president. Ultimately it is better for Egypt and for the democratic process to have a state and a system of government, even if an undemocratic one, than to have no state or system of government. The former encourages democratic political forces to continue to press for democratic transformation, while the no state alternative may suit secret underground groups like the Muslim Brotherhood but does not serve the welfare of the Egyptian people. The opposition forces, including the Strong Egypt Party, need to strive to formulate alternative political programmes in which they lay out alternative visions for government and public policy. In other words, they should try to act as political parties rather than as associations of rights activists. Rather than trying to lock horns with the authorities in a battle that can be settled by a single debilitating blow (a battle they will lose), they should bear in mind that the battles that have taken place in all successful democratic experiments have been the sort that are won by gradually scoring points. Egypt does not need early presidential elections. No one in power or among the majority of the people has cause to even contemplate the idea. What Egypt does need is genuinely multi-candidate presidential elections to take place in three years' time. One of the conditions for making that happen is for the country's political forces to sustain the battle for existence and to keep faith with democracy. The alternative is decades of the same situation — a crisis-ridden country in which the government offers no reforms and the opposition offers only initiatives that have no impact on reality or on the government. The writer is a political analyst at the Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies and a former MP.
