By Salama A Salama The Egyptian people deserve an apology from politicians who seem confident that our public is corrupt, open to bribery and would vote for the highest bidder. In the course of the recent debate over presidential elections, party leaders voiced serious concern that foreign funds may influence the course of events and that the only guarantee for free elections is for each candidate to get the support of certain number of members of elected legislative and local bodies. The argument is laughable, but it has been taken seriously, with some politicians suggesting that candidates should secure the approval of a certain ratio of members of elected councils. I am stunned by the entire thinking. For starters, it is impossible for massive funds to get into the country and find their way into the pockets of corrupt voters all over the land without being undetected by our vigilant government and public. Also, the argument smacks of the same old notion that Egyptians are not mature enough to handle democracy, cannot tell right from wrong, and must be protected from a multitude of erroneous tendencies. All over the world, there are strict regulations determining the manner of spending and the source of funding in election campaigns. No party is allowed to spend endlessly or receive funds without declaring the source. Such is the common practice and in order to apply it here we need to have a general elections committee, a committee with the legal power to inspect and approve the financial practices of all candidates. Collecting public signatures is of course a superior method than securing the support of elected councils. The neutrality and even legitimacy of the latter, everyone knows, is in question. As high a number as 60 of the members of the People's Assembly at one point or another had someone contesting the legality of their membership, over dual nationality, drug dealing, or any number of crimes and infractions. As for municipal councils, they are practically appointed by the National Democratic Party (NDP). I cannot see us rejecting the candidacy of someone who has collected 10,000 signatures and accepting that of a party leader with no supporters to mention. Exempting party leaders from conditions that apply to other candidates would set off endless legal wrangling. The madness was not confined to signatures. A severe case of paranoia seems to be going around, with everyone warning of foreign interference in the elections. Anyone proposing that international observers be invited is a suspect of compromising the nation. Anyone suggesting that civil society should be active in supervising the elections is viewed with suspicion. And talking with foreign ambassadors, delegations or journalists is now frowned upon. So far, all attempts to amend Article 76 have focussed on finding a compromise solution, one acceptable to both the NDP and opposition parties, one that may end up flouting standard international norms. And as we run out of time, our standards keep getting lower. Allow me to propose, once again, that President Mubarak run uncontested in the coming elections, for it is unimaginable that any prudent candidate would run against the president under the current circumstances. Then within a specified period -- let's say two years -- the constitutional reform should be introduced slowly and carefully. We mustn't introduce half-boiled reforms at the expense of credibility and probity. I am also proposing that the next People's Assembly elections take place on time, following the amendment of the parties' law and the law for exercising political rights. Also, the presidency needs to disassociate itself from the leadership of the NDP, for that would enhance its neutrality and status.
