A leading figure of al-Hadara (Civilisation) Party, Hatem Azzam, revealed yesterday that centrist parties are holding consultations to coalesce in elections to institute the new parliament. Six Salafist parties have reportedly approved the forging of a coalition called ‘Free Homeland' to contest parliamentary elections with one combined list. The Nour, equally categorised as Salafist-oriented, has, however, opted to stay out of the ultraconservative hexagon and to run independently or ‘co-ordinate' with the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in the race for individual seats of the parliament. Negotiations between the Free Homeland coalition, which includes the Hazem Abu Ismail-led Egyptian Nation Party and the MB over a possible coalition have reportedly ended in failure. And for more than a week or so, news stories have had it that consultations were under way between the Strong Egypt Party, led by Dr. Abdul Moneim Abul Fotouh, a former presidential candidate, and the National Salvation Front (NSF) over the possibility of the former joining the latter. The story was followed by reports suggesting that no such consultations had technically existed but that there had been just an exchange of views when NSF leader ElBaradei paid a courtesy visit to Abul Fotouh who was recuperating from an ailment. Late news is that both politicians have “agreed in principle" to coalesce only in the contest for House of Deputies (HD) seats – a notice served apparently to dismiss the possibility of Strong Egypt joining the NSF. In the meantime, the MB is said to have been pondering coordination with al-Wasat (Centre) Party and possibly a coalition with any of the liberal parties. And the Revolution's Tomorrow Party, led by Ayman Nour who contested the 2005 presidential election, has finally decided to refrain from engaging in electoral coalitions altogether. And the scene keeps changing hour after another. Though not all-inclusive, it is an overview of the banging debut of an almost new political phenomenon that could leave its mark widely felt in the contest for seats of the House of Deputies, Egypt's equivalent of a law-making chamber as so named in the new constitution. It is political coalition-building and steering for election purposes. And in this sense, the process implies serious challenges, simply because coalitions are largely ad hoc arrangements which do not require their member-parties or individual members to shelve or renounce their political convictions unless they so accept willingly, in which case the evolving arrangement would be tantamount to an enduring merger. Even that latter pattern has also surfaced here, though at a noticeably lesser extent. The example available so far is that of the four Nasserite parties with their plans to announce today a full merger to be called the United Nasserite Party. There might have been instances of alliance building in parliamentary elections in the immediate and near past, but such were either minimal in scope or marginal in terms of their capacity to influence the final outcome. In a deeper insight, previous experiences could be defined more as timed partnerships or understandings than as formidable electoral blocs or coalitions. The newly emerging coalition modalities also differ from preceding partnerships or understandings in their political context or ecosystem. By all standards and be it from the perspective of the opposition or that of the advocacy, the forthcoming parliamentary elections will indeed be an historically landmark event, coming as they will as the first democratic exercise to follow the endorsement of the nation's post-Revolution constitution. In other words, present day coalitions, be they already formed or still in the offing, do not have all their roots in earlier endeavours to form such political groupings ahead of parliamentary elections. Rather, the origins of present-day coalition-building practices could be traced back just to the days of the plebiscite on the new constitution. For that was the time when political groups and movements sought to develop larger associations inter se based upon shared views on two particular issues; namely, the formation and performance of the Constituent Assembly that was tasked with writing the new constitution, and the content of the then draft constitution. Soon after release of the final, official tally of plebiscite votes, the National Salvation Front announced that its member-parties as well as individual members would retain the grouping which was initially formed for the purpose of opposing the then draft constitution whilst under writing by the Constituent Assembly and during the referendum. The idea of sustaining the NSF appeared quite justified for the developers of the proposal as the grouping was encouraged by having secured a 36% – No vote in the plebiscite on the new constitution, hence the public emphasis placed by Front leaders on the continuity theme. Consequently, the argument surfaced that if sustained, the once constitution-focused coalition could get access to no less than one third of the votes in any election race to follow. The notion has now evolved into a serious consideration of the NSF contesting HD elections as one group but with two separate lists as indicated by one of its activists, Dr. M. Abul-Ghar, the other day. But there are now press reports of another position by the NSF: to forward one list while keeping the two-list option open in case the situation in some constituencies so demands. As the coalition phenomenon started trending, word went under way that the Freedom and Justice Party has suggested or at least insinuated that a coalition with the National Salvation Front could be either thinkable or feasible in return for the latter's acceptance to join in the national dialogue process that is still being overseen or moderated by former vice-president Mahmoud Makki. The story was, however, dismissed soon when sources on both sides rushed to exclude the suggestion, going even as far as to deny that no overture of the sort had ever been there. Irrespective of the extent of authenticity, this and other stories of the sort tacitly imply a couple of significant considerations; namely, the probability of previously unthinkable associations turning into feasible options and the rise of electoral coalitions as an acknowledged phenomenon in domestic politics. For the time being as well as for the foreseeable future, the coalitions to emerge here will be focused on HD elections and would in all probability shape the distribution of political power and inclinations in a parliament that would serve as Egypt's law-maker and government monitor for the four years to come. But it is still premature to judge whether the political coalitions already formed and those that are still in the making can develop into durable political entities that would serve as an asset for vibrant democracy. Should the present political dynamism in Egypt succeed in firmly establishing such a centre stage, democracy would gain deeper roots, more stable balances and more enduring power checks.
