Following the elections in 2005, women in Egypt are less represented than they were in 2000. Hoda Badran* examines the reasons why One would be forgiven for thinking it a nightmare when the main political parties declared lists of candidates for the 2005 Egyptian legislative elections that were almost bereft of women's names. The National Democratic Party (NDP), whose head promised during the presidential campaign a larger space for women in the political arena, only put six women on its candidacy list. This constituted less than one per cent of its total number of candidates. Other opposition parties weren't much better, except for the leftist Tagammu where women constituted around nine per cent of the total. It was beyond imagination that the parties ended up with only 16 women candidates combined. This number is down from the 2000 election, when the ruling NDP nominated 11, and 22 ran from the opposition. When the parties were criticised for such gender bias, their defence was an unacceptable over- simplification of the problem. As usual, the problem centred completely on women themselves. We were told that women were not willing to enter the campaign, and generally speaking were not ready for the political game. But the fact that more than 100 women ran their election campaign as independents proved that women are still willing to get into the arena, even without party support. Unfortunately, only four women candidates were able to win seats in the new parliament. Five more were appointed by the president, which makes the total percentage lower than what we had, and about the lowest in the whole world. Concern about the election process and its outcome was unprecedented, as reflected in Egyptian and foreign media, in human rights groups' statements, and in several panel discussions. The issue of women was of concern, not only because of the absence of women candidates but also because of the way women voters were exploited in great numbers to sell their votes. Women have always been coerced into voting blindly for certain candidates, but not in this new fashion, not in such numbers, and not with an elections market price. Why have we moved backwards in terms of women's political rights? I believe that two major factors contributed to the marginalisation of women in the 2005 parliamentary elections. The first, which is at the root of the problem, is the way the rules of the Egyptian political game are set. The second factor is the anti-women atmosphere that has intensified in society during recent years. The rules of the game are designed to regulate the behaviour of prospective candidates, levels of financial spending during campaigns, access to media, etc. Several examples ably illustrate how the rules of the Egyptian political game are unfair to women, intentionally denying them appropriate levels of participation. Theoretically speaking, the MP's role is to legislate and monitor the government's performance. The way this role is perceived by the constituency is completely different. Parliament members are expected to request individual favours for their consistency from ministers, or at least demand services for their community. Since men out-skill women in this respect -- or so it is perceived -- voters prefer male representatives in parliament. MPs, in turn, find it easy to play the expected role and hence satisfy their consistency, rather than taking on their real job description. Such easy outs give substance to a distorted definition of the role of the parliamentarian, and enforce a gender bias at the same time. The police's role during the elections was also confusing, leaving women voters and candidates without protection. Lack of clear definition of the National Council for Women's role in supporting women candidates was also unfair. Candidates felt betrayed. NGOs weren't in a position to step in, having no clear means to support the women candidates, in light of the restrictions outlined by the NGOs law. The needs of women candidates were much greater than NGO resources. Another rule of the political game that marginalised women in the 2005 elections relates to the position of women in political parties. The segregation of women members in special committees puts them outside the significant decision-making circles, limiting their interaction with male members. The basic assumption here is that women are good as voters, but parties cannot risk giving them an opportunity to run as candidates. Accordingly, parties don't put effort into recruiting women or training them as promising parliamentarians. The few women on party candidacy lists are mere tokens. Others are supporters of the party as voters and supporters of male candidates at the polls. A third rule of the political game that discouraged women from entering the 2005 elections as independents is the financial costs of campaigning. The ceiling of LE70,000 which the government tried to impose on campaign expenses was greatly extended. Few women can afford even the fixed amount of expenses, and hence are easily disqualified from the game even before it begins. A fourth rule is a culture of defamation. Women are marginalised when an agreed-upon code of ethics is absent, one that obliges candidates to refrain from using false accusations or rumours to damage other candidates' images. False rumours used against women candidates in certain cases ruined their family life. In a culture where a woman's reputation is critical, women refrain from entering spaces where they may be suspected of immorality, among other slights. It is easier to attack and underline women by rumour and outright lies in this respect than it is with men. A fifth aspect of the game that is unfair to women is the image that the media holds of women leadership roles. They are mostly presented as neglecting their other roles -- principally domestic roles -- and as such are seen to be "showy", "bossy", and ultimately untrustworthy. This aside, women candidates weren't given equal space in the media during the 2005 elections. Finally, acts of violence practised during elections that became yet another of the rules of the game, are very discouraging to women, for obvious reasons. These are but some examples of the existing rules of the political game that are unfair to women and hence marginalise them. Some of these rules marginalise other groups as well, whose presence in parliament is as necessary as that of women, in order to represent different views and interests. The second factor that contributed greatly to the marginalisation of women in the 2005 elections is the recently intensified anti-woman atmosphere. The increase in the rate of women entering the labour market associated with the opening up of educational opportunities has presented women as serious competitors in a society of high unemployment. Paid work has also increased women's power vis-à-vis men, creating tension around men's traditional domination of the role of provider for the family. Contraception has also empowered women, giving them more control over their reproduction role. International conferences -- Beijing in particular -- have made an impact on governments and encouraged women to demand their basic rights. Media has also -- though often ambivalently -- given space for women's issues. In a country where men feel they are not exercising their own rights, this focus on women has created resentment towards them. Foreign reports on reform emphasising gender equality add to this resentment, altogether leading to few women candidates for parliament, and few votes for women. The factors discussed don't give a complete diagnosis for why women were marginalised in the 2005 elections or why few were elected, but any solution to the problem has to take these factors into consideration. * The writer is chairperson of the Alliance for Arab Women.
