It remains unclear how the government will ultimately deal with escalating pressure to allow foreign and local observers to oversee this fall's presidential and parliamentary elections. Just this week, the pressure from abroad went up a notch when US Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick urged "officials to let in observers to ensure a fair vote". Domestically, a coalition of 22 rights and civil society groups submitted a request to the ministries of interior and justice, to allow local observers to monitor the upcoming polls. The coalition submitted the same request to the Supreme Electoral Committee, which, under a new law on political rights, is assigned to supervise the overall electoral process. The coalition has also obtained the support of the government-backed National Council for Human Rights (NCHR). In a bid to prove its "neutrality", the coalition is also naming a consultative committee of 50 public figures from different fields. The coalition chose Mohamed El-Sayed Said, deputy head of Al-Ahram's Centre for Political and Strategic Studies, to head the committee, which is also slated to include Al-Ahram columnist Salama Ahmed Salama, political science professor Mohamed Kamel El-Sayed, leading businessman Naguib Sawiris, novelist Sonallah Ibrahim, and prominent filmmaker Youssef Chahine. In the same vein, Saadeddin Ibrahim, the head of the Ibn Khaldun Centre for Development Studies, told a press conference on Monday that although he has given up initial plans to run for the presidency, he would be dedicating his efforts to monitoring elections instead. Ibrahim said his centre had formed a monitoring committee of six different NGOs, who are also ready to cooperate with the coalition of 22 rights groups. Those NGOs include Al-Kalema (The Word) Centre, Raya Centre for Tanweer (Enlightenment), the Egyptian Society for Tanweer (Enlightenment), the Legal Assistance Society, the Society for Democratic Dialogue, and the Egyptian Society for Transparency. Ibrahim, however, did not elaborate on the mechanism he will implement to monitor the elections. The larger coalition, for its part, seemed clearer about its plans. Initial moves include an assessment of the political and legislative environment prior to the elections, and an investigation into whether different candidates will be allowed fair representation in the state-owned media. The coalition also plans to oversee the overall electoral process -- observing the voting itself, evaluating voter classifications, results and complaints, and providing a final detailed report. "Observers, for instance, will observe if a candidate is banned, investigate reasons behind that ban, and see if the candidate takes any legal measure to contest that ban," said Hafez Abu Seada, secretary-general of the Egyptian Organisation for Human Right (EOHR). On the day of the election, local monitors plan to observe the voting process via a random sample of 80 polling stations in different governorates. "They will, for instance, see if a judge is present, and if security forces prohibit voters from casting their ballots, and so on," said Abu Seada, who is also the coalition's coordinator. "Our job is to see how internationally compliant the whole process will be." Abu Seada, however, also made it clear that local monitoring was not a substitute for foreign surveillance. "Both are widespread practices in democratic countries, and are enshrined in the Copenhagen International Treaty," he said. "In a big and densely-populated country like Egypt," concurred Cairo Centre for Human Rights Director Bahieddin Hassan, "international and local monitoring need to complement each other." Interestingly, there are also those sceptical of both forms of monitoring. While foreign monitoring has often been painted as a form of foreign interference in domestic affairs, the impartiality of local monitoring has also provoked equal concern. "Many rights groups are monitoring the elections just to get more funds from abroad," said the Kifaya movement's Adel-Halim Qandil, "rather than to boost democratisation in the country". Qandil and others had issues with the fact that the coalition sought out the help of the NCHR, a group both formed and financed by the government. Qandil also called the consultative committee, which involves 50 independent public figures, "no more than a cosmetic measure to make the coalition appear neutral". Saeda said the NCHR's role "would not go beyond that of a mediator between the government and independent rights groups." The council would also be "receiving violation reports on its hotline service". Seada said the coalition was "just knocking on all doors to get approval from the government to monitor the elections". That approval, according to Seada, was necessary to facilitate the monitoring process -- or at the very least not impede it. And if the government does not respond positively, Seada said, "we will pursue our legal right to monitor the elections, anyway." On this, Seada remains optimistic. He argued that it is in the government's own interest to accept both local and foreign monitoring in order to prove to the world that the steps being taken toward reform and democracy "are not just cosmetic". Otherwise, "the whole world will think [the government's] rejection of both local and international monitoring stems from a fear of its electoral misconduct being exposed on a global scale". Hassan's conclusion is that "the assessment of local and foreign monitors will at least be more professional than exaggerated media coverage that will probably be fiercer in its criticism." Even if the government does end up bowing to pressure by allowing local or foreign monitoring, or a combination of both, almost all those speaking to Al-Ahram Weekly suspected that the government would also "place all possible obstacles in the face of a real monitoring process". Qandil, for one, speculated that security forces would "probably not allow monitors free access to polling stations". He cited incidents from past parliamentary elections when "judges themselves were not allowed into more than five per cent of polling stations." Qandil said, "the electoral system is so bogged down in a quagmire of rigging and violations that any attempt at monitoring would be rendered almost ineffective." A recent Judges Club report included widespread claims of irregularities such as the use of voters' lists with names of the deceased, and police preventing voters from reaching polling stations. While Qandil is of the view that "monitoring would not actually help ensure fair elections" -- because the problems are so complex -- Hassan countered that monitoring was not meant -- in and of itself -- to induce immediate change. "We are no more than witnesses," he said. Observers are neither entitled to interfere in the electoral process, or take any action in case a violation occurs. Still, Hassan thinks, "there is no doubt that final reports would ultimately help avoid irregularities in the long term, and might also make the government more cautious about allowing serious violations." A bigger issue for many of those involved in the monitoring debate seems to be whether or not the presidential election will be "real enough" to monitor in the first place. According to Hassan, "no massive irregularities are expected to occur, since nobody expects a real campaign anyway." He cited a stagnant political atmosphere that has prevented the emergence of viable candidates, and the short time (three weeks) being allotted to campaigning. That, however, does not necessarily mean observers will not have much to do. "We will explain all the legislative and political obstacles impeding a real presidential campaign in the final report," Hassan said. Observing parliamentary elections, on the other hand, where "competition will be much fiercer than any previous election," he said, should provide monitors with a much bigger challenge. Which raises the issue of whether or not local monitors are even qualified enough. Rights groups would defiantly answer in the positive. Ibrahim boasted of having 150 trained monitors with three years of experience in the field readily available for the job. An equally confident Seada said the EOHR would use its legacy of experience in both local and foreign monitoring to train at least 2,500 observers. For Hassan, however, experience is not the issue. The government, he predicted, will simply be more cooperative with international observers. "This has always been the case in Egypt. The government already shows more respect for foreign human rights groups, and is more concerned about a couple of lines in a foreign publication than a whole page in a local newspaper. Why should the way it deals with monitors be any different?" Additional reporting by Mustafa El-Menshawy
