Egypt's parliamentary elections achieved one thing very clearly: the reconstitution of the elite at the cost of real democratic renewal, writes Amin Howeidi* The parliamentary elections are over. To put them in their proper perspective, we might describe them as one of the "battles" waged by the government in its "war" for reform. Particularly impressive were the successes scored by the Muslim Brotherhood. These gains, achieved legally even if the officially- banned organisation had to move surreptitiously, show what can be accomplished by strong will, good organisation and perseverance, regardless of whether the ultimate aims are legitimate or not. This is what it takes in that jungle we call politics. In that contest of wills, the strongest and most fit to survive is that which assesses and most advantageously deploys its available resources, turns difficult circumstances to its favour and persists steadfastly towards the achievement of its goals. It is not recognition by others that counts, but asserting oneself as an irrefutable reality. For decades the world only recognised Formosa, but China eventually forced it to recognise Beijing. In Egypt, after years of stealthily moving below ground, the Free Officers surfaced and rose to the peak of power. This brings us to the tragedy of the properly-registered publicly-declared parties. These work above ground. They have proper headquarters in well-known buildings. They have officially-declared sources of income and other more obscure sources of income. They operate their own newspapers and hold meetings, forums and rallies. They number 21 altogether, and their performance in the elections was an unmitigated disaster. Naturally, there was an outcry. Charges of unfair play were levelled, some well-grounded, others spurious, which undermined the more reasonable allegations, and a fact-finding commission is being formed to investigate irregularities, make sure everyone gets what is due to them, and rid the elections of their nasty aftertaste. Nevertheless, I doubt very much that those official parties faced pressures or obstacles that were more formidable than those encountered by the outlawed religious-political organisation, that was under constant scrutiny and some of whose members were rounded up and thrown into prison, even during the elections. All this begs several compelling questions. Does the existence of all those political parties equal democracy or a façade for a continuing one-party state? Zero times 21 equals 0, leaving the ruling party the only party in town that counts. How odd it is that we have not heard of a single party chief tendering his resignation after having led his party to ignominious defeat, or, worse yet, of party cadres clamouring for resignations. This can only mean one thing; that everything will just go on as always. Is this acceptable? We must also ask, can we build political democracy without social democracy ? Also, is democracy just a matter of casting votes or does it involve something deeper and more ongoing, such as raising the awareness of voters? That only 25 per cent of registered voters turned out to the polls does not bode well. If anything, it tells us that the majority of the people feel that the elections had nothing to do with them or that the game was not to their liking. As I contemplated these questions, I cast my mind back to the inroads made by workers, farmers, women, students and intellectuals towards social democracy in the 50s and 60s. When I thought of the attrition these achievements have suffered since then, I grew more perplexed. In all events, I drew the conclusion that now is the time to reduce the number of political parties, applying the commercial principle that fewer numbers and higher quality will yield greater profit. Another disturbing phenomenon that sheds light on political party crisis is the rise in the numbers of candidates fielding themselves as independents. Since the parliamentary elections of 1990, these have risen from 2,134 to 2,950 in 1995, 3,280 in 2000 to 5,000 this year. Nothing could offer a clearer indication of the growing lack of confidence in the existing parties and the inability of these parties to attract supporters. However, the greater shock is reserved for after the results come in, at which point one finds that an overwhelming number of independents return, parliamentary seat in hand, to the fold of the ruling party, to the great delight of and encouragement from the ruling party leadership. One detects here a strong reek of opportunism, especially after the powers that be in the ruling party had declared their resolve to expel those turncoats only to retract this position in the face of the dwindling popularity of their party in the polls. It does little credit to any party to welcome back into its embrace those who are so readily prepared to change their skin. Although there is nothing unconstitutional or illegal in this, the phenomenon is still morally repellent. When voters cast their ballots for Sheikh Mohamed Ali running as an independent, the chances are high that they would not have voted for him as a ruling party candidate. For Sheikh Mohamed Ali to turn around and join the ruling party after his victory and for the ruling party to accept him back is a betrayal of those who had supported him. We have to lay the moral foundations for a democratic state, because without those foundations we will be building that democracy on sand. I am further perplexed by the awkward position in which members of the judiciary have been placed. The 1971 constitution provides for judicial supervision of the elections, not judicial administration of the elections. However, the Supreme Constitutional Court ruled that two members of the judiciary had to be present in every polling station. In spite of this, parliamentary elections have been marred by gross violations, which in turn cast a disturbing shadow over the prestige of the judiciary. Such a situation should have been avoided at all costs. It is somehow demeaning to the image of justice to take a judge from behind the bench and place him in a polling station, all the more so when it is established that his presence does not prevent electoral fraud. This practice must be stopped. It is vital to preserve the dignity and integrity of the judiciary, whose motto is "Justice is the foundation of good rule." Government officials had failed to put into effect the rules that would realise the intent of the constitutional provisions and the Supreme Court ruling and guarantee that the judges could perform their electoral duties effectively and safely. Some judges complained of electoral fraud. Others were accused of collaborating in electoral fraud, newspapers announcing that they had been charged and were to be brought to trial. Satellite stations swooped down on this news and spread it further, adding juicy details in the process. Normally, people appeal to the courts to protect them from aggression. During the elections, it was the judges who had to appeal to the police for protection against thugs. Judges belong in the courtroom and polling stations should have proper guards. The lines between the two should not be blurred; each job has its own responsibilities and duties. Serious thought must be given to safeguarding the sanctity of the judiciary. The elections are over and they brought in a very lopsided parliament. The opposition parties have only marginal representation. The Muslim Brothers hold a significant number of seats but not enough to make a decisive bloc. The Christian presence is faint, women are absent entirely, business is there in force and the NDP is overwhelmingly dominant, and the chances are slim that this configuration will change. This is the parliament that will determine who runs in the next presidential elections, preparations for which are already in progress and the aims of which are the subject of heated debate. It is an elitist game, its participants sometimes playing on the same side and at other times on opposing sides. Meanwhile, others who would have the right to be nominated stand on the sidelines, on occasion voluntarily, but more frequently against their will. How long will this situation persist? The reform process to which we aspire is an uphill journey. If we engage in this battle without proper resolve and effective means we will lose it. Then we will be forced into other battles, led by the same elite, or perhaps other elites. Egypt, God bless it, has never had a shortage of elites. History testifies to this and history does not lie. And it has plenty of stories to tell of movements above ground and movements under ground. But then, action brings results, or so the saying goes. * The writer is former minister of defense and chief of General Intelligence.
