To what extent can they be disconnected, asks Mohamed Sid-Ahmed As the presidential campaign enters its second week, all we have seen is the various candidates airing their views in complete isolation from one another. The Egyptian people are being subjected to a series of monologues when what they need to hear is a dialogue between the candidates, as series of televised debates that can help them form a true picture of what each has to offer and what each can deliver. As it is, all are making extravagant promises that are arousing a great deal of scepticism and very little hope. Democratic systems, such as those in force in America and France, set great store by these debates, which provide the electorate with a better understanding of the issues at stake. However, when this example is held up to argue the need for similar debates in Egypt's presidential elections, the counter argument used to justify not adopting the model of democracy in use in the West is that Egypt has suffered much from foreign intervention in the colonial era and is not ready to be dictated to again by external powers. In the age of globalisation and growing interdependence between states, Egypt still bears the scars of its colonial past. It wants to ensure that what it has acquired thanks to independence is not squandered and is not exclusively ceremonial in nature. However, there are many who disagree with such a logic. There is no doubt that President Hosni Mubarak is omnipresent in Egypt's political life and that most, if not all, Egyptians are familiar with his political beliefs. But what is required is to activate the process of participation, not merely to inform people of what happened after the fact. The essence of democracy is to involve citizens actively in the political process, to ensure that each has a say in determining the course of events. Herein lies the importance of face-to-face debates between presidential candidates, which allows citizens to form an impression of each based on his performance under pressure rather than on the basis of promises that may or may not be kept. It also allows citizens to feel that they are part and parcel of the decision-making process that their opinion has weight and is taken seriously. Democracy is a mechanism that is not consistent if it does not extend to society as a whole. In a democracy, decision-making is a collective process, the result of confronting ideas with ideas and of not excluding any opinions a priori. It is imperative that all contenders for the presidency have equal opportunities in the presidential campaign. No candidate should be privileged, either in rights or duties. This applies to the campaign of the incumbent president who should be subjected to the same rules as all the other candidates. That is easier said than done, however. The state apparatus has been conditioned over years to serve the incumbent president, and there is no guarantee that it can switch overnight to a genuinely objective and nonpartisan position. One way of getting round this problem is to concentrate on rectifying the procedural aspects of the campaign, which is eminently possible if the political will is there and all parties involved show good faith. For a start, management and supervision of the electoral process should be undertaken by a nonpartisan committee rather than, as is now the case, by the state apparatus. That is vital for the credibility of the elections, given that the lines of demarcation between the ruling party and the state apparatus are extremely blurred, not to say nonexistent. So interconnected are the NDP and its executive arm that they are virtually interchangeable, as in "party of the government", or the "government of the party"! Where does this leave Egyptians who identify with neither the ruling party nor with the government? We had hoped for elections that would strengthen Egypt's legitimacy by having "constitutional legitimacy" replace "revolutionary legitimacy", but we have lost the former without acquiring the latter. We had hoped for elections that would bring people closer together, but we have actually further intensified conflict between the various segments of society, between ruling party members and opposition party members, between members of legally recognised parties and members of parties that are not legally recognised, and all this at a time terrorism is reaching ever more critical heights. Finally, I believe the head of state should be above party life and not part of it. He would then be dealing with all Egyptians on an equal footing, without privileging anyone, putting in place a mechanism with the best possible chances of not being biased. True, it is never possible to be absolutely unbiased. Any political organ is subjected to pressure, whatever the efforts made to diminish its impact. But it could also be a good start for reform and renewal.
