Police violence mars the second round of elections, but judges airing off to the media didn't help matters either, writes Ibrahim Nafie Now that the second stage of Egyptian parliamentary elections is complete, we have a fair idea of the shape of our future parliament. Major figures from the National Democratic Party (NDP) and the opposition have lost. The Muslim Brotherhood (MB) has made substantial gains, winning more seats in the first and second stages of the elections than it had planned for in the entire three stages. The turnout was typically low, at 20 per cent. One reason for the low turnout is that voters' lists remain flawed and violence was unfortunately widespread. Another reason is that a major part of the Egyptian populace is displeased with the existing parties and political figures. The battle was mainly between the NDP and the MB. The NDP is the ruling party and as such in a position to give a boost to its candidates. The MB fared well because it is an ideological movement with an immense aptitude for mobilisation. Many irregularities took place and were duly reported by civil society observers and judges supervising the elections. In some constituencies, courts have annulled the elections and ordered a rerun. For the time being, the government is reluctant to hold reruns, a matter which puts the new parliament in a precarious situation as it could be disbanded under the pressure of lawsuits. The elections uncovered some of the flaws of NDP thinking and performance, flaws that lost it the sympathy of a large section of the public. The NDP is still influenced by the old generation and its ways. It needs to revise its thinking and infuse fresh blood into its ranks. As for the performance of the state, civil society observers have pointed out that Egyptian security forces used excessive force with voters, so much so that many went home without voting. Some judges protested police actions and threatened to stop polling in their stations. Some polling stations are said to have remained empty for hours because of security cordons the police had thrown around them. This was the case in the second stage of the elections. In the first stage, judges and observers complained of the "excessive neutrality" of the police, saying that security forces stood by and did nothing to prevent acts of violence. Thugs were said to have entered some polling stations and wreaked havoc with ballot boxes. Some judges say they were threatened and assaulted. Democracy needs the protection of the police. Security forces should keep order, ensure voters' access to polling stations, and prevent violence. In the first stage of elections, the police did too little; in the second round, too much. There must be a way for the police to find a middle way. It should impose order without discouraging voters. We need a state apparatus that promotes democracy, not one that is strictly "neutral". We need to maintain law and order in an objective manner. The judges' supervision of elections was a good thing, for it reassured the public. Irregularities took place. That much is clear and to be expected in a country that is still trying its hand at democracy. The judges have taken note of the regularities and have closed down several polling centres. What the judges should not do, however, is to appear in the media and air their views on controversial issues. The judiciary system has an image to protect, and it cannot do so by getting involved in public controversy. The clash that happened between some judges and the Higher Judiciary Council was not helpful either. The judges should stay away from the media circus. The judges know how to air these views through standard legal and constitutional channels. The media is not the right place to discuss legal grievances.
