The debate between presidential candidates Abdel-Moneim Abul-Fotouh and Amr Moussa may have been light on policy specifics but that hardly curtailed the enthusiasm of their supporters, writes Dina Ezzat It has been a week since millions of viewers -- Egyptians as well as other Arabs -- tuned in to watch the first ever debate, not only in Egypt but in the Arab world, between presidential candidates. A week after Abdel-Moneim Abul-Fotouh and Amr Moussa spent close to five hours trying to gain the confidence of around 50 million Egyptian voters, the debate over the debate continues. A good part of the debate over the five hour ping-pong between Abul-Fotouh and Moussa was focussed on the dismay and frustration of supporters on both sides over the performance of their candidates. There has, too, been a predictable voicing of criticism, with Abul-Fotouh supporters saying that Moussa was too arrogant and convoluted in his discourse, and Moussa supporters arguing that Abul-Fotouh was too simplistic. There is, too -- though to a lesser extent -- an ongoing debate about what each candidate said. Abul-Fotouh supporters echo lines from the debate that they think reflect their candidate's vision for "a strong Egypt" while Moussa camp followers repeat what they think confirms their candidate's vision of "rebuilding Egypt through the introduction of the second republic". Fotouhists cannot get enough of Moussa's slip of the tongue when he referred to Iran as an Arab rather than a Muslim country, and have condemned the dismissive body language and pejorative vocabulary he sometimes used when addressing Abul-Fotouh. Moussaists endlessly mock Abul-Fotouh's failure to remember the full questions that were posed and his repeated scratching of his forehead and nose. Fotouhists say their candidate was honest and straightforward while Moussa used roundabout ways to cast a negative light on his adversary's history of involvement with political Islam. Moussaists claim their candidate was straightforward in offering his views while Abul-Fotouh used exaggerated language in an attempt to foreground Moussa's ties with ousted president Hosni Mubarak between 1991 to 2001 when he served as foreign minister. "At the end of the day it is unlikely that either candidate's performance would have converted supporters of the other," says Mohamed El-Agati, executive director of Alternatives, a political science study centre. The reason, says El-Agati, was that each candidate had set out to confirm the expectations of his constituency and in doing so also confirmed the expectations of his adversary's supporters. Abul-Fotouh endlessly reminded the audience that Moussa had not only served Mubarak as foreign minister but repeatedly expressed his support of Mubarak in public while Moussa stressed that Abul-Fotouh was a dyed in the wool radical Islamist who in addressing a liberal audience adopted a very different discourse than when speaking to Islamists. Neither candidate, says long-time rights activist Chahendah Maklad, had anything new to offer the public. What the debate did do, however, was expose the characters of both men. Moussa, Maklad said, came across as truly arrogant, while Abul-Fotouh came across as someone with a very radical agenda. Under Moussa, said Maklad, it became apparent that Egypt would be "a somewhat upgraded version of the country as it was under Mubarak" while under Abul-Fotouh it "would be a religion-based and not a civil state". "The good thing about the debate was that it provided a reminder that the next four years will in the end be an extension of the transitional period," said Maklad. For MP Ziad El-Oleimi, a leading figure of the 25 January Revolution, the issue is not about the content or the impact of the debate but that it actually happened. As such, El-Oleimi argues, it is the beginning of a massive change "in the public perception of the president". "What this debate brought home is that the president is just another civil servant, albeit a high-ranking one assigned to the job by voters who can scrutinise everything he says and does and, if they so desire, mock him." But while the debate, says El-Oleimi, is an extension of the revolution, the presidential elections are not. "To have elections worthy of the revolution there should have been more guarantees of transparency. That is going to take more time and effort to deliver. For now we have broken the taboo of the god-president." In a poll conducted by the Cabinet Information and Decision Support Centre, published on Tuesday, 62 per cent of respondents did not watch any of the debate. Ten per cent said they had watched it through, while 28 per cent watched part of it. The poll revealed that 41 per cent of those who had tuned in supported Moussa and 31 per cent Abul-Fotouh. Twelve per cent said they liked neither. "The results show that the debate served simply to reinforce views rather than change peoples' minds," says activist Darine Hamdi. Hamdi favours Khaled Ali, one of four leftist candidates in the presidential race. "I know that Ali does not have much chance of making it to round two. The run-off will most probably be between these two or between one of them and the Brotherhood's Mohamed Mursi but I will still vote for Ali." And come round two? "I will vote for Moussa. I don't trust the promises made by Abul-Fotouh about sticking to the principles of a modern civil state," said Hamdi after much hesitation. Activist Mina Nagui is also going to vote for a leftist candidate in the first round. In the second round he says he will vote for Abul-Fotouh. "As someone who was in the revolution I would support Abul-Fotouh, who subscribed to its ideals, and not Moussa. I am not worried that, as a Copt, Abul-Fotouh will undermine my rights." Political science professor and commentator Nevine Mosaad, who makes no secret of her antipathy to the Islamist project, notes that both candidates "made similar arguments and commitments on ways to restore security, provide better services and promote greater social justice". But Moussa, she says, was "clear in his discourse and programme over the rights of women and Copts whereas Abul-Fotouh was not." "What was attributed to Abul-Fotouh in relation to the Islamists' adoption of violence is something that Abul-Fotouh should be held accountable for, especially given that he referred to elements of the Islamic groups that committed violence at one point as 'kind brothers'," she said. Abul-Fotouh "tried to come across as a consensus figure who could reach out to all segments of the political spectrum but in the end appeared as someone who was not talking straight". "He made too many statements without offering any explanation of what they might really mean. He said that Israel is an enemy -- which Moussa did not -- but stopped short of saying what this implies. Would Abul-Fotouh suspend the peace agreement with the announced enemy? Will he sever diplomatic relations? He just made a statement that he thought it would win him some support and did not follow through on its implications." Political analyst Ibrahim El-Hodeibi takes the opposite view. Moussa, he says, offered no coherent vision for the transformation of Egypt into a strong state. "His argument lacked content and his strategy was designed to scare people off Abul-Fotouh." But according to El-Hodeibi Abul-Fotouh stood his ground, defending political, economic and social rights including those related to peaceful demonstrations, subsidised education and the management of the public purse to serve the interests of wider society. Abul-Fotouh, says El-Hodeibi, offered a vision for change while Moussa proposed maintaining the Mubarak-era status quo with a little tinkering here and there. "Moussa said he was tested and proven successful -- but that was in the authoritarian context of the Mubarak regime. What we need now is someone who can lead the country away from that context," El-Hodeibi said. A major shortcoming of the debate, both Mosaad and El-Hodeibi agree, was that it left a number of important questions unanswered, not least the constitutional framework in which each candidate expects to be working. The debate between Abul-Fotouh and Moussa is the only scheduled confrontation between presidential runners. Other candidates have declined to take part in such televised discussions.
