No one seriously doubts that Egyptian President Husni Mubarak is going to win a fifth term in Egypt’s first competitive presidential elections on September 7. Because of the nature of the elections — the high bar for independent candidates, which virtually prevents their running, and the restrictions on who may run from a recognized party, which prevents Muslim Brotherhood candidates from standing under another party banner — many dismiss the whole exercise. The country’s most important issues, including the question of who will eventually succeed the aging Mubarak, will not be settled by this election. It is certainly not a competitive race in any normal sense. But while recognizing the predetermined outcome and the many obstacles faced by the opposition candidates, there are a few things to watch for when the results come in:
· How credible is the margin of victory? Although polling is difficult in a country where there is no history of competitive Presidential elections and people are suspicious of telling pollsters their real feelings, most of the polls that do exist show Mubarak leading but also show support for his two main opponents, Al-Ghad Party leader Ayman Nour and Al-Wafd Party leader Nu‘man Gum‘a. One question is whether the results, as announced, will actually reflect a race or will resemble last year’s Tunisian presidential elections, in which President Zine El ‘Abidine Ben ‘Ali ran against three other candidates but nevertheless claimed victory with 94% of the vote.
In a completely free and fair election, Mubarak would probably win easily, given the government’s control of state patronage, the dominant role of the pro-government media and the fact that the opposition candidates are not well known outside Cairo. But if the claimed margin of victory, like Ben ‘Ali’s in Tunisia, is outrageously high, the elections will be easily dismissed. If, on the other hand, a realistic claim of 65-70 percent for the incumbent is made, that may signal that the government is prepared to accept a realistic role for an opposition, at least within some constraints.
· Who Runs Second? The government is clearly annoyed by the role of Ayman Nour. Nour has been a gadfly and drew international attention when he was jailed for alleged forgery on his party’s petitions. His high profile probably forced the government to let him run, despite rules now in effect for future races limiting the race to candidates from parties at least five years old.
Many Egyptians believe that the reason Al-Wafd Party leader Gum‘a decided to run for the Presidency was a combination of rivalry with Nour, who split from the Wafd to form his party, and encouragement from the government. By this interpretation, the government wants to make sure that Nour does not run second and would like to see Gum‘a in that role. In return, the theory goes, the Wafd would be allowed to win a substantial number of seats in the Parliamentary elections due later this year. Gum‘a comes from Mubarak’s home province of Menufiyya and by some accounts attended the same high school. He may have been persuaded to run by the ruling National Democratic Party in order to split Nour’s vote. If Nour runs third behind Gum‘a, this may suggest that the National Democrats actively delivered the vote for the Wafd in some areas in order to undercut Nour. If Nour runs second, it adds to the credibility of the election, since that is clearly not the result the government wants to see.
· How fair will the polling be? Egypt’s judges’ syndicate voted on May 13 to refuse to carry out their constitutional role of monitoring the polls unless the government revamped the judiciary law to assure free and fair elections. Though the government made no change and the judges voted on September 2 to go ahead with the polls, they announced that they would carry out their own monitoring and invite non-governmental human rights organizations to observe the polls. The last elections in 2000 were widely criticized for irregularities at the polls; the judges’ confrontation with the government may lead to greater scrutiny this time. If there are widespread abuses reported, there will be greater pressure mounted by human rights groups and the judiciary before the parliamentary elections.
· What will happen in the parlimentary elections? Some Egyptian reformers are suggesting that the real test of the government’s sincerity about reform will be the parliamentary elections. The government, if it is sincere about reform and democratization, has an opportunity to allow a broader participation in the parliamentary polls. Although in recent parliamentary elections the opposition parties have won only a small number of seats, that has not always been the case. In the 1980s, after Mubarak succeeded Anwar Sadat, there was a brief flourishing of multi-party politics. In 1984, an alliance between the Wafd and the Muslim Brotherhood won 58 seats; in 1987, the Brotherhood, allied this time with the Socialist Labor Party, won 78 seats. In recent elections the opposition parties have rarely won over 20 seats in the 454-seat Parliament. In 1987 the ruling National Democratic Party claimed to have won only 69.3 percent of the vote: the smallest margin it has ever admitted to.
It is true that the ruling party has always made sure it controlled enough seats in Parliament to pass a constitutional amendment – thus having no real effective opposition. But at least in the 1980s the opposition won enough seats to have a voice, which in recent years has rarely been the case.
Michael C. Dunn is editor of The Middle East Journal, a quarterly publication produced by the Middle East Institute. He is also editor of The Estimate, a biweekly newsletter that provides intelligence analysis on the contemporary Middle East and neighboring regions, and has previously taught at Georgetown University and Utah State University.
Disclaimer: Assertions and opinions in this Commentary are solely those of the above-mentioned author(s) and do not reflect necessarily the views of the Middle East Institute, which expressly does not take positions on Middle East policy.
Related Resources
Countries
Regional Issues
No one seriously doubts that Egyptian President Husni Mubarak is going to win a fifth term in Egypt’s first competitive presidential elections on September 7. Because of the nature of the elections — the high bar for independent candidates, which virtually prevents their running, and the restrictions on who may run from a recognized party, which prevents Muslim Brotherhood candidates from standing under another party banner — many dismiss the whole exercise. The country’s most important issues, including the question of who will eventually succeed the aging Mubarak, will not be settled by this election. It is certainly not a competitive race in any normal sense. But while recognizing the predetermined outcome and the many obstacles faced by the opposition candidates, there are a few things to watch for when the results come in:
· How credible is the margin of victory? Although polling is difficult in a country where there is no history of competitive Presidential elections and people are suspicious of telling pollsters their real feelings, most of the polls that do exist show Mubarak leading but also show support for his two main opponents, Al-Ghad Party leader Ayman Nour and Al-Wafd Party leader Nu‘man Gum‘a. One question is whether the results, as announced, will actually reflect a race or will resemble last year’s Tunisian presidential elections, in which President Zine El ‘Abidine Ben ‘Ali ran against three other candidates but nevertheless claimed victory with 94% of the vote.
In a completely free and fair election, Mubarak would probably win easily, given the government’s control of state patronage, the dominant role of the pro-government media and the fact that the opposition candidates are not well known outside Cairo. But if the claimed margin of victory, like Ben ‘Ali’s in Tunisia, is outrageously high, the elections will be easily dismissed. If, on the other hand, a realistic claim of 65-70 percent for the incumbent is made, that may signal that the government is prepared to accept a realistic role for an opposition, at least within some constraints.
· Who Runs Second? The government is clearly annoyed by the role of Ayman Nour. Nour has been a gadfly and drew international attention when he was jailed for alleged forgery on his party’s petitions. His high profile probably forced the government to let him run, despite rules now in effect for future races limiting the race to candidates from parties at least five years old.
Many Egyptians believe that the reason Al-Wafd Party leader Gum‘a decided to run for the Presidency was a combination of rivalry with Nour, who split from the Wafd to form his party, and encouragement from the government. By this interpretation, the government wants to make sure that Nour does not run second and would like to see Gum‘a in that role. In return, the theory goes, the Wafd would be allowed to win a substantial number of seats in the Parliamentary elections due later this year. Gum‘a comes from Mubarak’s home province of Menufiyya and by some accounts attended the same high school. He may have been persuaded to run by the ruling National Democratic Party in order to split Nour’s vote. If Nour runs third behind Gum‘a, this may suggest that the National Democrats actively delivered the vote for the Wafd in some areas in order to undercut Nour. If Nour runs second, it adds to the credibility of the election, since that is clearly not the result the government wants to see.
· How fair will the polling be? Egypt’s judges’ syndicate voted on May 13 to refuse to carry out their constitutional role of monitoring the polls unless the government revamped the judiciary law to assure free and fair elections. Though the government made no change and the judges voted on September 2 to go ahead with the polls, they announced that they would carry out their own monitoring and invite non-governmental human rights organizations to observe the polls. The last elections in 2000 were widely criticized for irregularities at the polls; the judges’ confrontation with the government may lead to greater scrutiny this time. If there are widespread abuses reported, there will be greater pressure mounted by human rights groups and the judiciary before the parliamentary elections.
· What will happen in the parlimentary elections? Some Egyptian reformers are suggesting that the real test of the government’s sincerity about reform will be the parliamentary elections. The government, if it is sincere about reform and democratization, has an opportunity to allow a broader participation in the parliamentary polls. Although in recent parliamentary elections the opposition parties have won only a small number of seats, that has not always been the case. In the 1980s, after Mubarak succeeded Anwar Sadat, there was a brief flourishing of multi-party politics. In 1984, an alliance between the Wafd and the Muslim Brotherhood won 58 seats; in 1987, the Brotherhood, allied this time with the Socialist Labor Party, won 78 seats. In recent elections the opposition parties have rarely won over 20 seats in the 454-seat Parliament. In 1987 the ruling National Democratic Party claimed to have won only 69.3 percent of the vote: the smallest margin it has ever admitted to.
It is true that the ruling party has always made sure it controlled enough seats in Parliament to pass a constitutional amendment – thus having no real effective opposition. But at least in the 1980s the opposition won enough seats to have a voice, which in recent years has rarely been the case.
Michael C. Dunn is editor of The Middle East Journal, a quarterly publication produced by the Middle East Institute. He is also editor of The Estimate, a biweekly newsletter that provides intelligence analysis on the contemporary Middle East and neighboring regions, and has previously taught at Georgetown University and Utah State University.