Doaa El-Bey covers Egypt's parliamentary elections which are almost upon us and the scepticism shared by many over another Israeli settlement freeze Given that the parliamentary elections are after a few days, the race among the parties is escalating. Newspapers devoted whole pages to the parties' programmes, candidates and their last-ditch attempts to collect votes. Mustafa Hassan wrote that on Sunday 28 November 40 million people will supposedly go to the ballot boxes to elect a new parliament which will be given a mandate to legislate, monitor the government and work to meet the people's needs. Hassan pointed out some negatives that appear during election time, namely candidates who participate in all occasions in their constituencies and distribute presents to attract more voters, then disappear after the vote, becoming impossible for any voter to reach them. Thus, he called on every voter to participate in the elections and choose the candidate who can represent him in the true sense of the word. "Vote for the best candidate because it is the only way to find good treatment given by the state, decent schools and hope that drinking water and sanitary drainage will come to your village soon," Hassan wrote in the official daily Al-Akhbar . Wael Nawara discussed international monitoring of the elections. He wrote that the regime's supporters are against international monitoring because they claim the election does not need monitoring. They also consider it an encroachment on the state's sovereignty. Meanwhile, most people that the writer came across in meetings and conversations were in favour of local and international monitoring as well as judicial monitoring which was waived in the 2007 constitutional amendments. Nawara asked what harm would come from the presence of international monitors during the elections. Egyptian monitors take part in monitoring elections in Europe, Africa and the US. It has become an international norm that monitors from other countries take part in monitoring elections in other states, he wrote in the independent daily Al-Masry Al-Yom. "The result of the electoral process everywhere is the outcome of political competition between parties which are governed by the same regulations of the game. State bodies do not interfere in that game in the interest of a party or a person. But in Egypt, the results are drawn up beforehand, and the process is either tailored or rigged in a theatrical way to reach those results." As a result, Nawara satirically called for annulling the elections altogether and giving parliament a break until the president or the people find the suitable time for the start of genuine political competition in a multi-party system. Shafei Mohamed Bashir criticised the deputy head of the National Council for Human Rights who rejected the presence of a judge in every ballot box and the presence of international monitors. Bashir asked in the weekly newspaper Al-Dostour why he was against international monitoring. Is it because of the general environment in Egypt under emergency laws, or the constitutional amendment of articles 76 and 88, plus police practices which guarantee holding free and fair elections, he asked. "International monitoring is not an odd practice or something done only in fledgling states. It is the norm in many states that hold fair and free elections. But the states that are used to rigging the elections, like Egypt, fear international monitoring," Bashir wrote. Anwar Esmat El-Sadat commented on the state's tight control of the media and expected it to last until next year's presidential elections. He wrote that control of TV talk shows and the recent closure of some satellite channels was under the pretext that they did not abide by the conditions according to which their licences were issued. El-Sadat hailed these shows which have gained wide viewerships and the respect of audiences. These shows played a pivotal role in bringing to the fore major events like the torrential rains in Aswan and during the Israeli war against Gaza. As a result, the writer concluded, these shows could not be banned for trivial reasons unless this is the will of the regime. "The government has started to tighten its control of some TV programmes and their prominent presenters in an attempt to direct them to serving the general objectives of the regime in the coming period. However, these shows and their presenters have already planted an awareness among the people that the regime will never manage to uproot," El-Sadat wrote in the daily Al-Wafd, the mouthpiece of the opposition Wafd Party. Sherif El-Abd questioned whether businessmen have a better chance than other candidates of winning the elections. In previous elections, he wrote, a number of businessmen ran but many lost in spite of the huge amount of money they spent in their campaigns. In the present election, El-Abd added, there is no guarantee that any businessman will win despite the huge amount of meat and presents they distribute to poor families. The only guarantee that a businessman can have, he wrote in the official daily Al-Ahram is his contribution to serving his society, providing job opportunities and helping the poor. Newspapers did not welcome the US attempt to persuade Israel to impose another moratorium on settlement building for 90 days because the freeze does not include East Jerusalem. The editorial of the official daily Al-Gomhuriya said that when the US presented an unprecedented deal to the Israelis it did not present the Palestinians with anything except the restart of direct negotiations as if it were a valuable prize that the Palestinians would get in return for US military, economic and security sacrifices given to Israel. Meanwhile, the US did not give the Palestinians any guarantees what the negotiations would achieve in that period which means that Israel is given a free hand to build more settlements at the end of the 90 days with the consent of the Palestinians and without making any concessions.
