Presidential
elections…and beyond
The
nomination of candidates for Egypt’s first ever multi-candidate presidential elections—to be held on 7 September—ended earlier this
month. The one-week nomination period brimmed with surprises and speculation, with Egyptians’ attention focused on the names of the nominees,
their orientations, objectives and
programmes. Sad to say, most declarations made by presidential hopefuls were rather shallow—in
some cases almost comic—lacking in the seriousness and sense of responsibility
indispensable for the contested
post. Actually, most statements reflected a
fascination with power, fame
and glory, that is, with
the gloss of the post. This is not to blame those who
nominated themselves, rather, I personally applaud their courage and initiative, and wish luck to those
whose nomination was approved by the Presidential Election Committee.
The upcoming period should witness the competition of programmes and proposals by rival
candidates. However, a quick look at
the nominees and their first
declarations—including those who were
disqualified—leads one to wonder if this is the utmost
Egypt could offer in leadership and statesmanship. The answer is definitely not. Egypt is not barren of people who possess ample wisdom and insight, and are waiting for the right time to rise, come forward,
introduce their programmes
to the public, and lead. They probably
believe that the reform process
has already started, but the six-month period
since the onset of reform last March and the presidential
elections scheduled for September—whether or not this period was
deliberately limited—is too short to allow a serious approach to the masses. I am confident that after the end
of the presidential and parliamentary elections, they will use the climate
of reform to work hard and prepare themselves
to take part in next parliamentary or presidential elections due in 2010 and 2011 respectively.
It must be admitted that
President Mubarak has accumulated enough trust with the people to give him an unquestionable
advantage over the other candidates. However, it must also be admitted
that this is not merely because of his achievements, but has much to do with the existing political
vacuum which makes the multi-candidate elections—the first
in more than 50 years—closer to a pre-determined battle which lacks
real competition. This however
should not preclude serious participation in the process through investigating candidates’ programmes, following
up on their electoral campaigns, and heading to the polls. Practice makes perfect, and this
applies to the political process and reform just
as to everything else.
It is sensible to aspire for change, but political
change should thrive in a
culture of plurality and
power sharing and rotation.
In this context, those who compete
for posts at different levels should not be condemned
or defamed, and those who control power should abandon the pursuit to monopolise it forever. I thus believe that the
real strive for reform and change should seriously start after the elections.
The right to freely form political—rather than religious—parties,
so as to inject new blood in the political
arena, should be secured. New, creative figures, and innovative programmes and
concepts can thus surface, grab a share in the political field,
and draw the attention of wide sectors of Egyptians. Our political life would be wealthier, and
we would emerge out of the dark tunnel which now traps Egyptians
between the one ruling party and
the scary prospect of religious fundamentalism.
This is my view of the
present and future phases
of our political life. It is the
view of an Egyptian who is keen
to contribute to running his
country’s affairs, and invites all others to do so. I do not fear different opinions or evade plurality, nor do I call for rallying behind a specific candidate. In this context, I find that the support announced by the Coptic Church to Mubarak, and its call upon
Copts to re-elect him for President, inconsistent with democratic practice. It confiscates Copts’ rights to free political
inclination and commitment,
and bypasses their Egyptian identity in favour of their Coptic one, reducing them to mere subjects of the Church.