So what does the Muslim Brotherhood's "positive boycott" of the presidential elections really mean? Jailan Halawi looks for answers Mohamed Mahdi Akef, Supreme Guide of Egypt's largest opposition bloc, the Muslim Brotherhood, announced on Sunday that following a thorough review of the candidates' platforms the brothers had decided to "positively boycott" the 7 September presidential elections. What this means, explained Akef, is that while the Brotherhood would decline from supporting any one of the 10 candidates it was calling on its members and supporters to take part in choosing their next leader and to vote in the elections. In a press conference held at the group's downtown headquarters Akef said the brothers should be "meticulous" in casting their votes. They should give their support only to candidates "who genuinely deserve it" since to vote is "a testimony before God". Urging the public to participate in the elections Akef warned that they must "examine their choices carefully" and beware not to vote for "despots, corrupt or unfair" candidates. "We know in advance that the election is already settled in the president's favour," he continued, "yet we call on our brothers, and the whole nation, to take part and, after reviewing the different candidates' platform and deciding which vision best serves the nation, make their choice." Akef's announcement ends speculation that the Brotherhood was intending to boycott the poll. A majority of the Brotherhood, said Akef, agreed that voting "has become a responsibility". Despite being banned since 1954 the Brotherhood has emerged as the most significant opposition group within the political arena. With more than two million members, and supporters estimated at three million plus, its position towards the elections had been eagerly awaited. Unable to field candidates under its own name, winning the approval of the group would be a major coup for any of the contestants. Last week witnessed a flurry of speculation over the Brotherhood's position, with some commentators suggesting the movement was facing a split over whether or not to boycott the presidential elections. Rumours then emerged in the press of a possible deal, with the Brotherhood urging its supporters to participate in return for political favours from the regime, including the release from detention of prominent members and the promise of more seats in the forthcoming parliamentary elections. Speaking to Al-Ahram Weekly Akef denied the claims. "We would not back Mubarak," he said, who after 24 years in power "has failed to achieve political reform". In recent months growing numbers of Brotherhood members have been detained following a spate of anti-Mubarak demonstrations, the largest of which had been organised by the group. Two weeks ago the prosecutor-general extended the detention of Essam El-Erian, secretary-general of the Doctors' Syndicate and a prominent Brotherhood member. Three others -- architecture professor Essam Deraj, assistant professor at Cairo University Hamdi Shahine and lawyer Yasser Abdu -- arrested at El-Erian's house in May were also further detained pending investigations. All four have been charged with membership of an illegal group, and for possession and distribution of publications inciting sedition. Earlier this month the prosecutor-general extended the detention of Mahmoud Ezzat, the Brotherhood's secretary-general accused of planning demonstrations opposed to the elections. Few political analysts accept Akef's denial at face value, and speculation continues over a possible deal in which El-Erian and Ezzat are released in return for the group withholding its support for any candidate running against Mubarak. "The Brotherhood's call to participate is a stab in the back of opposition forces and breaches their earlier pledge to boycott the elections. It is difficult to avoid the suspicion that there is an understanding between the Brotherhood's leaders and the regime," says Nabil Abdel-Fattah, an expert at Al-Ahram Centre for Strategic and Political Studies. The Brotherhood's position, Abdel-Fattah believes, leaves the group with a growing "credibility gap". It is, he argues, allowing the state to use it "to cast a shadow of legitimacy across the elections and subvert Egypt's growing opposition" -- movements such as Kifaya, Writers for Change and others calling for a boycott of the elections. Playing along with the regime, says Abdel-Fattah, "provides the Brotherhood with a golden opportunity to bargain for more seats in the coming parliamentary elections". And the decision, he continues, appears to be wholly undemocratic, given that more than half the group's members appear to have been in favour of a boycott. Abdel-Fattah scoffs at Akef's denial of any deal. "Let him say whatever he likes, the game is clear. His statements are nothing but a manoeuvre aimed at distracting the public's attention from the group's real intentions."
