Egypt’s
Democratic Transition
By Dr Ahmad Faruqui
Dansville, CA
Political progress comes slowly
to nations that have suffered from dictatorial
rule for decades. Some times it does not come
at all. So what should we make of the recent presidential
elections in Egypt that have bestowed on a man
who has ruled that country with absolute authority
since 1981 yet another six-year term? Should we
applaud President Mubarak’s decision to
hold the first multi-candidate presidential elections
or condemn it?
I think we should applaud it, but gingerly. Despite
its less than satisfactory result, this election
may well represent the first wave of a political
tsunami that will transform the political landscape
of the Arab world. Egypt, with a population of
70 million, is home to the world’s oldest
university, Al Azhar, and a strong intellectual
tradition. Its capital, Cairo, meaning the Victorious,
is replete with monuments that hearken back 40
centuries to a glorious past. Egypt is by no means
the wealthiest state in the region and is classified
by the World Bank as a lower income/middle income
state. It produces only 13 percent of the economic
output of the Middle East and North Africa region,
which has a per capita income of about $2,200,
considerably higher than Egypt’s $1,400.
Yet with its rich history, Egypt remains a bellwether
for regional political developments and the cultural
epicenter of the Arab world.
According to official data, Mubarak won 88.5 percent
of the vote on September 7 while Ayman Nour, who
came in second, got 7.3 percent. In a mature democracy,
the winning candidate is judged to have scored
a landslide if he or she gets a margin of 10 percentage
points. So what does one call a winning margin
of 81 percentage points? A mudslide may be the
appropriate term, since it highlights the softness
of the democratic process in Egypt.
This becomes clear when we note that less than
23 percent of Egypt’s 32 million registered
voters went to the polling station to cast their
votes. Mubarak was declared a victor with only
6.31 million votes. This is half the number of
people who had voted in the referendum to amend
the constitution in May, allowing the holding
of multi-candidate presidential elections.
It is not hard to see why so few even bothered
to participate in the poll. On Election Day, Mubarak’s
National Democratic Party had positioned its supporters
around all polling stations, chanting slogans,
photographing voters, and in many cases intimidating
anyone considering voting against the president
of 24 years. International polling observers were
not allowed and decisions about polling irregularities
were left to the judges, who would have been hard
pressed to rule against the larger-than-life incumbent.
The supposedly indelible ink on voters’
fingers proved quite washable in the end. And
the president rebuffed opposition’s calls
for televised debates.
Thus Mubarak’s win was hardly a surprise,
despite his lack of popularity in the country.
It fits a pattern observed in other Arab republics
such as Algeria and Tunisia where presidential
elections are a novelty and incumbents have swept
aside unknown challengers with ease. In the case
of Mubarak, his win was assured because he had
complete control over the Egyptian press and media
and, most importantly, over its only national
political party. In just three weeks, the other
candidates were expected to organize their political
campaign by holding rallies, town hall meetings
and press conferences. As one Egyptian intellectual
put it, these were his country’s “three
minutes of freedom.”
What is interesting to note is that even with
all these constraints, Mubarak’s rating
fell by ten percentage points, from the high 90s
with which he was said to have “won”
the past four presidential elections (which were
really referendums) to the high 80s. Can there
be any doubt that with a freer political climate
that gives equal media access to all candidates
and permits a longer window for campaigning, his
ratings would slip below the 50s?
Mubarak, now 77 years old, has ruled longer than
any one prior ruler during the past two centuries
except for Muhammad Ali Pasha, an Albanian who
was appointed as viceroy of Egypt by the Ottomans
on Napoleon’s departure from that country.
Ali, who ruled from 1805 to 1848, is considered
the founder of modern Egypt. Gamal Abdel Nasser,
who ruled as Egypt’s president from 1954
to 1970, was the key Egyptian ruler in the post-Second
World War era and is regarded by some as having
founded the first republic. He died a heartbroken
man after a series of military failures against
Israel. Nasser was succeeded by his vice president,
Anwar Sadat, who ruled the second republic from
1970 to 1981. His rule ended when he was gunned
down by some of his own soldiers during a military
parade. The assassins represented a growing movement
whose members were disenchanted with the US-brokered
peace accord that Sadat had signed with Israel
at Camp David and with his crackdown on Muslim
militants. This ushered in Hosni Mubarak’s
third republic. He had been Sadat’s vice
president and the head of the Air Force. Mubarak,
who does not have a vice president, was grooming
his son to succeed him. That may no longer be
feasible in the new electoral environment.
Placing pressure on Mubarak to hold multi-candidate
elections has to count as one of the Bush administration’s
few successes in the Middle East. Without such
pressure, it is highly unlikely that these elections
would have been held. The world would have witnessed
another referendum in which, consistent with past
practice, less than 10 percent of registered voters
would have participated. Instead, Mubarak was
forced to amend the constitution and contest the
presidency with nine other candidates, some of
whom he and his party had disparaged.
The elections forced Mubarak to reach out to the
electorate by traveling throughout the country.
They forced him to put himself on the same field
as other candidates, even if the playing field
was not level and has yielded the expected, skewed
result.
Another, more important test of Egypt’s
political evolution is coming up in the multi-party
parliamentary polls in November. If those yield
credible results, they will reinforce the momentum
toward democracy created by the presidential elections.
One hopes in the future Mubarak will find a way
to include the country’s largest opposition
party, the Muslim Brotherhood, in the electoral
process. It would also be necessary to amend the
constitution and place term limits on the president.
No person should be allowed to rule a generation.
Egypt’s presidential elections are a welcome
development. While they do not represent the end
of authoritarian rule in the Arab world, they
do represent the beginning of the end.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
