By Salama A Salama Whatever reservations we might harbour over the amendment of article 76, which effectively prevents independent candidates from running for the presidency, and despite existing political laws that give the National Democratic Party (NDP) a clear advantage, the fact is that presidential elections will be held soon. For these elections to maintain a semblance of credibility the government must bear in mind that it is embarking on a new phase, one requiring new norms far removed from those that have applied in the past. A one-party, one- candidate situation is giving way to pluralism. We have been repeatedly told what presidential candidates should do and what they should not. Pundits have offered us the political equivalent of the Ten Commandments in this regard. We are told that not just anyone can be allowed to contest the presidency, that candidates must be exceptionally qualified, immensely capable, scrupulous to a fault. And who would dare differ? The pity is such stringent criteria are being applied only now, when decades of political stagnation mean there is no possibility of any high-profile candidate, save one, emerging. We've had our fill of advice. But if we are really serious about launching a new phase in the political life of the nation one more piece of advice is in order. The government must remain neutral throughout the course of the elections. It should, for example, listen to what the judges are saying. Candidates should be granted equal opportunities to address the nation through the media. It must treat candidates, and voters, as equals. People cannot be prevented from voting, as has happened in the past, simply because the government dislikes what it perceives to be their political leanings. Recent events, sadly, are not encouraging. Some government departments appear incapable of breaking long-standing habits that now, more than ever, should be consigned to the past. One would suppose, by now, that the prime minister would have instructed ministers, governors and senior officials to remain neutral and not campaign for one candidate at the expense of another. Apparently he has not. Likewise, one would suppose that the official media, whether written or broadcast, would have received guidelines aimed at ensuring its own neutrality. But no. The simple fact is that Egypt does not possess the kind of government that could project the kind of neutrality necessary to oversee elections. Already we have been treated to the unedifying sight of ministers calling on preachers to pledge their support for the incumbent president. Governors have been splashing city streets and squares with signs of their support for one candidate. And workers are still being trucked by their superiors to rallies in support of one candidate. It is a far from pretty picture. The real challenge Egypt faces is to restore confidence in the political process and in elections. The public has lost confidence in that process because decades of experience have taught it that the ballot boxes make no difference. And little, it seems, has changed. Article 76 has been amended in a way that suggests we're still holding a referendum, not a real election. If people in our midst are calling for the international monitoring of the elections it is because they do not have faith in the way things are going. This is a highly charged situation, with many calling for a boycott of the elections and the international community sounding increasingly sceptical. Perhaps the ruling party -- which has been calling all the shots so far -- should begin acting with whatever neutrality it can muster.
