The ruling National Democratic Party must realise that any attempt to fix Egypt's forthcoming presidential elections will surely backfire, writes Hassan Nafaa* Unexpectedly, without prelude, President Hosni Mubarak took the bold, and at the same time, difficult-to- understand decision to ask the People's Assembly to take the necessary steps to amend Article 76 of the constitution so as to allow for secret, multi-candidate presidential elections. Within the next few weeks, parliament should have completed the drafting of the amendment, which will go into effect following a popular referendum on it. If procedures go according to plan, September will see the first presidential elections ever in Egyptian history. It defies the abilities of any political analyst to pinpoint precisely what factors prompted the president, after 24 years at the pinnacle of the pyramid of power in Egypt, remaining so in accordance with the old and very comfortable presidential referendum process, to take this momentous step only months before his presidency was due to be renewed for a fifth term. The initiative raises more questions than it answers, and circumstances at the time of its announcement simply do not offer enough information to enable one to deduce what exactly was going on in the president's mind. It is impossible, therefore, to determine whether this is a tactical move aimed at alleviating certain domestic and regional pressures or whether it is part of a strategy for extricating the country from its current impasse within the framework of a carefully studied and executed programme for political reform and steady and irreversible democratisation. The only thing that is certain is that this initiative, regardless of its motives, will have a profound, perhaps radical impact on the future shape of the Egyptian political system. The significance of Mubarak's decision to amend Article 76 resides in the nature of the article itself, touching as it does on the fulcrum of the entire system of government. The 1971 constitution concentrates such a vast array of powers in the hands of the president of the republic that he effectively controls all institutions of government, including the legislative and judicial branches. Because of the nearly absolute power granted to an individual who is not directly elected by the people, Article 76 imparted a clearly dictatorial character to the entire system. Amending this article, therefore, to provide for the free and fair direct popular election of the president from more than one candidate alters the very nature of the system and renders its legitimacy above suspicion. In addition, the amendment of this key constitutional article anticipates the prospect of further amendments, leading perhaps to a complete overhaul of the constitution. However, the more immediate question that absorbed public opinion is whether there is a possibility of holding serious presidential elections in September, clearing the way for true democratic transformation. The views that have been aired in the controversy over this question suggest the existence of three distinct camps of opinion. The first fears that truly free presidential elections will unleash destabilising factors that could run out of control, ultimately leading to political upheavals of dangerous proportion. This view is espoused by influential circles within the ruling NDP, which has therefore adopted the counter-strategy of voiding the president's initiative of substance by pushing for the toughest possible restrictions on candidacies. This camp appears not only determined to guarantee the victory of the NDP candidate in the forthcoming elections but also to pre-empt the possibility of any substantive change in the government structure in the future. The opposing camp questions the sincerity of the initiative. They believe that its purpose is purely cosmetic, aiming only to lend a patina of legitimacy to an illegitimate regime. They therefore believe that more harm than good can come of it, especially if the nomination process is hampered by the restrictions the ruling party wants to impose. The Kifaya (Enough) movement is the most prominent exponent of this camp and its strategy is to mobilise the public in order to sustain the greatest possible pressure towards the realisation of fundamental change in the structure of the system. In the short term, their aim is either to ensure the defeat of the NDP candidate or, at least, to secure sufficient guarantees from the ruling party for substantive progress towards true democratisation within a reasonable period of time. Between these two camps is a large segment of the public caught between scepticism and optimism. They question the intentions of the ruling party and also the intentions of the official opposition, which they believe suffers the same ailments as the former. Their hope is that this initiative will give rise to a massive grassroots movement capable of sustaining the demand for democratisation until it reaches true fruition. The silent majority that makes up this camp is increasingly anxious about the future of the country under a regime that is beginning to show the signs of age, weakness and confusion. It is only made worse when no convincing healthy alternative is in sight. This loose assortment of people has no clear collective strategy, for, by definition, it does not represent a single identifiable political movement or ideological strand. Nonetheless, a number of influential members of this group, such as judges and university professors, have recently begun to emerge from their stillness to urge that all necessary measures and guarantees be taken to ensure a truly free, open and honest multi-candidate presidential campaign. I believe that this camp will assert itself more and more forcefully in the coming months as it finds itself increasingly the object of focus for the two other camps. For this reason, of all three camps it stands to have the greatest impact on the future of the Egyptian political system in the coming phase. The position it takes, therefore, will be the primary determinant of the global and international reactions to the forthcoming presidential elections in Egypt. Unfortunately, the situation so far is not particularly encouraging in this regard. Most of the established political parties are in disarray and thoroughly unprepared for elections of this sort and are therefore more inclined to striking a deal with the NDP in accordance with which they will help stage elections, the results of which would be a foregone conclusion, in exchange for guarantees of the largest number of seats they can bargain in the forthcoming People's Assembly. Meanwhile, NDP executives appear unsure of themselves and, therefore, uncertain of their ability to cope with any surprises that domestic and foreign pressures might bring to bear with regard to ending effective one-party rule. They, therefore, will be even more desperate in their attempts to push for stringent candidacy restrictions, which in turn will only dangerously inflame an already charged atmosphere My greatest misgiving, however, stems from the sense -- hopefully mistaken -- that panic and confusion has infected all sectors of the ruling elite, up to the highest echelons of the decision-making centres. Signs of this are many. Foremost among them is the recent spate of arrests of political activists. That no reasonable cause was cited for these arrests and no consideration was given to the political fallout this produce suggests to me that the regime is in the grips of a form of schizophrenia or nervous breakdown rendering it incapable of taking the right decisions at the right time. Nothing could be more dangerous at this particularly sensitive juncture. I was also struck by the curious media build-up that preceded the recent extended interview with Mubarak and which to me seemed more intended to promote Emad Adib and his wares. As important as that interview was, both in its own right and as substance for historians and political scientists, the air of expectation that was created in advance through strong hints that the president would make a surprise announcement may have fulfilled its purpose of attracting a wide audience but, intentionally or not, damaged the image of the president. It was not the many vital issues that the president raised that had viewers riveted to their television screens but rather the surprise that never came. Ultimately, this served the interests of those who were able to use their close relations with the president and exploit his kind-heartedness, to the detriment of the interests of the president himself. I can only surmise that some individuals managed to convince the president that the Kifaya movement was directed at him personally and that this was because the youth of today were not around or old enough to fully appreciate what happened in October 1973. In order to counter that campaign, therefore, they advised the president to give his personal testimony of that war and his role in it. I think that this advice was not well intended and that the counter campaign itself was technically flawed, its major flaw being its American-style sleekness. In all events, this phenomenon, too, was indicative of the schizophrenia that has afflicted that segment of the Egyptian political elite. I do not believe that there is a personal problem between the Egyptian people and their leadership. President Mubarak is still widely respected and admired for his contributions to the nation. The problem is with the system of government he inherited and which no longer reflects the aspirations of the people or the spirit of this age. The type of elites and policies it produces in the absence of proper mechanisms for transparency and accountability must inevitably rebound negatively on society and, sometimes, on its political leadership itself. It is time for all this to change, and the shortest and safest route towards this is to pursue the course which President Mubarak himself has indicated. Unfortunately, I fear that this is precisely what the elite surrounding him will not permit. Herein resides the greatest challenge facing Mubarak's call for amending Article 76. The people are looking for a leadership that will steer the country to change, with the forthcoming presidential elections as a starting point. The outside world is also waiting to welcome that change, which is why it will not permit an electoral farce. * The writer is a professor of political science at Cairo University.
