CAIRO: As Egypt draws near to Parliamentary elections in November, the regime's most vocal opponents are calling for a boycott of the elections. So far, only three opposition forces have confirmed their decision to boycott: the National Association for Change (NAC), headed by Mohamed ElBaradei, Ayman Nour's al-Ghad Party and the nascent Democratic Front Party. Yet only one opposition party, al-Wafd, has officially declared its intention to contest the election, and the decision was far from unanimous. Only 55 percent of the High Council of al-Wafd Party voted in favor of participation. George Ishaq, former leader of the Kefaya movement and a prominent member of the NAC, believes the support of al-Wafd could help the boycott movement. Yet, he supports the way the decision was made. Ishaq told Bikya Masr, “I believe in the democratic way. I believe in what happened in al-Wafd.” The highly divided vote underscores the uncertainty of Egypt's opposition regarding the boycott. While the al-Ghad party voted overwhelmingly in favor of boycotting, al-Ghad is a stubborn anti-regime force. Most other opposition groups are less willing to risk what little representation they have in Parliament simply to thumb their nose at the regime. Al-Ghad will, however, allow members to run as independents, a move TIME magazine called “a mockery of the boycott idea.” One of the most prominent proponents of the boycott is ElBaradei, who has frequently criticized Egypt's electoral conditions since retiring from the IAEA and returning to Egypt in February. ElBaradei is one of many Egyptians who are sure the November polls will be rigged in favor of the ruling party, and has consequently called on Egypt's opposition to boycott the election in protest. According to James Walston, professor of Political Science at the America University of Rome, “boycotting is effective if you can undermine the legitimacy of the event,” which is exactly what ElBaradei hopes to do. The problem, however, lies in the inherent disunity of the Egyptian opposition. Everyone is waiting for someone else to make the first move. While al-Wafd has declared participation, the Muslim Brotherhood has remained mostly silent, claiming statements to the press are nothing but speculation until its guidance council meets to formally decide whether the Brotherhood, Egypt's largest opposition force, will contest the election. Statements thus far have suggested that if the opposition unites in the boycott, the Brotherhood will join. Should the Brotherhood decide to boycott, it could provide motivation for smaller, less organized parties to jump on the bandwagon. On September 1, ElBaradei tweeted the following message to his 13,000 Twitter followers: “Total boycott of elections & signing petition R first steps 2 unmask sham ‘democracy.' Participation wld be contrary to the national will.” Suggesting that participation in the elections legitimizes a dictatorial regime is one of the major selling points of the boycott. ElBaradei also told his Twitter followers, “Our credibility is at stake.” The importance of credibility was echoed by Walston, who said boycotting the elections would allow those who boycott to “keep the moral high ground.” Yet credibility may be all the boycott offers. Walston made an example of the 1924 boycott of the Italian parliament by anti-Fascists who believed Mussolini had gone too far. It was “morally effective,” said Walston, but it was a “political disaster.” With only a handful of the political opposition supporting the boycott, the end result may not please the opposition. “Will it put them out of play? Yes, it probably will do them more harm than good if your definition of success is taking power,” Walston told Bikya Masr. Yet, “we aren't talking about real power,” he stressed. Egypt's legislative branch has often been referred to as a ‘rubber-stamp Parliament,' meaning it exists only to put a stamp of legitimacy on the decisions of the executive, in this case, the three-decade-long rule of President Hosni Mubarak. Should the opposition unite in boycotting November's elections, however, Walston suggests the result might be different. “Since the [Egyptian] Parliament is largely symbolic in terms of power, the symbols would be much stronger,” he said. “If they all boycotted, it would have some sort of effect.” Egyptian would be aware if the only group running in the elections were the NDP. “This makes Mubarak even less legitimate,” Walston added. Ashraf Naguib, a member of the ruling National Democratic Party's Youth Development Committee, thinks the possibility of a boycott is “ridiculous.” “There should be participation from political parties,” he told Bikya Masr. “They should rally their public, they should get their ideas across.” BM
