The National Democratic Party (NDP) has the right to nominate whoever it wants from among its members to compete in municipal elections, but it does not have the right to prevent other candidates, especially those belonging to legitimate political parties, because this is a constitutional right for all citizens. However, what has happened is that the NDP, through state institutions and organs, has prevented many candidates from submitting their municipal election applications through complicating procedures and interfering in the nomination process. Ironically, the NDP itself has suffered a great deal as a result of this strategy. There have been fierce battles nationwide among members who want to run for elections on party lists. It is no surprise, therefore, that nearly 800 members have tendered their resignations because they were denied access to municipal election candidacy. Perhaps the question now is: If the NDP is not powerful enough to participate in a fair competition at the municipal election, why should the elections be held in the first place? If the regime refuses competition from any other political faction, why was Article 76 of the constitution, which gives municipal councils an important role in presidential elections, amended? The ruling party has made several mistakes in managing the political process in general. Perhaps the first error is the adoption of an exclusive method in dealing with political opposition, as NDP leaders insist on the "one-party logic in spite of the existence of a multi-party system in Egypt, with the number of parties hitting at least 24. In spite of the weakness and fragility of political parties in Egypt, the ruling party deals with them as a threat to its survival and dominance over political life. If the NDP leaders enjoyed some sort of intelligence they would have opened the way for all parties to field candidates in as long as they are weak, fragile parties. The second error is that the NDP has undertaken a political massacre among its own members, while none of its leaders has moved a muscle. Squabbles and resignations in the party confirm the impression that the party is a principal channel for the spread of corruption and maximizing wealth, thanks to the intertwining relationship between it and state institutions. It is not enough to justify this massacre, as some NDP leaders have, by saying that it expresses a generational conflict within the party and that this is an opportunity for change. Such talk is ridiculous, because this logic is incompatible with the party s desire to possess and dominate power without a partner. The third error is that the NDP turns into a mere businessmen's club, with an explicit aim of backing the wealthy and influential in governorates to ensure their victory in the elections. Another important question now is: Who is responsible for the municipal elections portfolio in the NDP? Is it the new or old guard? All indicators suggest that members of the new guard are responsible for it. This is reflected in the weakness and lack of political experience exhibited so far, as well as their disregard for tribal and familial factors in these elections. One of the advantages of the old guard was that its members were aware of the tribal balances in the governorates where blood relations are influential. They were also able to keep up the image of a coherent party - contrary to the current image of fierce conflict. It's high time the NDP acknowledges that the best way to confirm the party s popularity and eligibility to rule is to be engaged in serious political rivalry, not to continue practicing politics with a "single-party mentality. Khalil Al-Anani is an expert on Political Islam and Deputy Editor of Al Siyassa Al Dawliya journal published by Al-Ahram Foundation.
