Doaa El-Bey shuffles through a muddled Egyptian presidential race The presidential race is full of surprises that kept the printed media on their toes. Makram Mohamed Ahmed sounded optimistic regarding the presidential elections because of his confidence in the choice of the Egyptian people. He wrote in the official daily Al-Ahram that despite the threats echoed by some political forces taking part in the presidential marathon, which he said amounted to a possible civil war, the presidential elections would pass peacefully with an unprecedented turnout because Egyptians will not allow any party to direct them. "Evidence shows that people, with all their different allegiances and colours, are discussing the poll in their workplace, home, cafés and on the street, and comparing the candidates. "Egyptians will show the world that they are a civilised people who are capable of assuming the responsibility of choosing their president. There will not be civil war, armed struggle or a second revolution," he predicted. Emadeddin Hussein wrote that he was very happy to hear the decision to disqualify Omar Suleiman, Khairat El-Shater, Salah Abu Ismail and others from joining the presidential race although it was still subject to appeal and the declaration of the official final list of presidential candidates. Hussein added, "one feels that God almighty does not want any harm to our country. Whenever politicians push it into a dilemma, divine intervention directs us to a way out." However, Hussein elaborated, that divine way out is proof of the absence of any political vision or detente between the conflicting political powers. As a result, the judiciary rather than free political interaction became the compass that guides and directs the country. The disqualification of Suleiman, El-Shater and Abu Ismail presented a solution to the biggest part of the problem and put an end to the state of polarisation that has appeared in the last few days, he explained. Moreover, the disqualification provided a ground for an agreement on a president who is widely accepted by the people. More than two-thirds of the problems, Hussein added, would be resolved if the Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) implemented its initative and re-established the constituent committee with a wider representation from society. "The State Council resolved the problem of the constituent committee by ruling that the established committee is void. The presidential election committee resolved the biggest part of the problem of the presidential candidates. Should we ask the same committee or any other judicial institution to find a president for us in light of the inability of most political parties, civil organisations and elite to do that?" Hussein wondered in the independent daily Al-Shorouk.The disenfranchisement law, approved by the parliament early this week, was welcomed by some parties as an easy way to exclude the fulul or remnants of the former regime, from the elections while others rejected is as an attempt to tailor laws to certain people. The law stipulates that those who were part of the former regime over the past 10 years would not be eligible to run for president. Nevine Yassin was one who rejected the law. She wrote that the parliament proved that it is still in the stage of political adolescence because it failed to steer the country to safety. The parliament, she elaborated, managed to pass the disenfranchisement law in one day and threatened to resort to million-man marches and popular pressure if the law was not ratified. Although Yassin was against the nomination of Suleiman, his nomination revealed the other face of Islamic organisations that hold the majority in parliament. They nervously confronted Suleiman who represented a threat to their attempt to take full control of authority in Egypt. They resorted to every trick in the book to stop him including tailoring laws. "Where was the disenfranchisement law before Suleiman's nomination? Why are they so scared of one person. Why didn't they leave the matter to the ballot box?" Yassin questioned in Al-Wafd, the mouthpiece of the opposition Wafd Party. She hailed the stand of human rights activists and the revolutionary youth who behaved in a wiser and more experienced way. Although they were against Suleiman, she explained, they were against tailoring a law to ban him from joining the race because they believe in genuine democracy and equal rights for all people. She considered this as a cruel lesson to the parliament and all religious trends who should have behaved in the same way. Taher Qabil considered boycotting the presidential elections, not in support of Suleiman or Abu Ismail, but because he was against tailoring laws or pressure and terrorism via recruiting supporters, or protesting in front of the venue of the electoral committee or calling for million-man marches and raising slogans like 'the people want...' whereas in reality, it is what the MB and Salafists want. "The MPs forgot their basic role in issuing laws that resolve the daily problems of the people and left their battle with the government to issue a law to ban Suleiman and Shafik from running in the presidential elections," Qabil wrote in the official daily Al-Akhbar. He summed up his article by wondering why MPs did not include previous ministers and businessmen who made millions during the Mubarak era. Those people were close to Mubarak and benefitted from his regime. Mohamed Nour Farahat, the constitutional expert, presented his viewpoint regarding the disenfranchisement law in the independent daily Al-Masry Al-Youm. Farahat noted that he was one of the first people who called for the disenfranchisement law within the constitutional declaration so that it would not be contested as unconstitutional, and that he was categorically against the nomination of Suleiman. However, what he found amazing were the many powers which were provoked by Suleiman's nomination but did not mention anything about the crimes he committed under Mubarak during his last year. If they were indeed after the national interest, why did they not file any complaints or lawsuits against him before his nomination, Farahat questioned. While he emphasised his belief in the importance of the law, Farahat rejected that it would come at the expense of disrespect to the constitution. The legal alternative that he suggested was amending Article 4 of the law ruining political life. That would give the prosecutor-general the right to temporarily ban whoever is soundly accused of ruining political life from assuming any political role until a verdict is passed regarding his case. And whoever has evidence that a person took part in damaging political life should present them to the prosecutor-general. "Preserving the revolution should go hand in hand with preserving the constitution and freedoms. Issuing laws to run political conflicts or achieve the ambitions of one group or another would not preserve the revolution," Farahat concluded.
