Egypt: Is Democracy Still Possible?
MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA, 4 Jun 2012
Abdallah Hendawy – TRANSCEND Media Service
Sixteen months ago, a popular revolution took place in Egypt to topple a sixty-year military dictatorship aiming at replacing it with a civilian democratically elected government. A few days ago, Egyptians voted for a new president. Among the 13 candidates, two candidates will be in a runoff in June 2012. Surprisingly, both top runners -Mohamed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood candidate followed by the former Air Force Commander Ahmed Shafik, Mubarak’s last prime minister- are not perceived in the eyes of young revolutionists to be the real representatives of the revolution. Then how come they are the top runners? What happened? Didn’t Egyptians rise up against a military dictatorship? Why then did more than 5.5 millions Egyptians vote for a former military commander? If Egyptians wanted a moderate civil state that represents all Egyptians regardless of their religions, race or ideology, why then did another 5.7 millions vote for Mohamed Morsi, the candidate of the Muslim Brotherhood?
By reviewing the past sixteen months, it becomes obvious that the transition period which was managed by the Superior Council of Armed Forces (SCAF) have highly affected the behavior of the voter and contributed to his/her decision on who to vote for. Throughout these sixteen months of transition, demonstrations, labor strikes, the absence of security, economic crisis, scarcity of basic commodities and political disorder have placed tremendous pressure on citizens to reclaim the need for a stable form of a state. Nevertheless, the sudden rise of Islamists, especially in the Parliament (73% of Islamists parties dominating the parliament) have sharpened issues of the identity of the state. Many moderate Muslims and non-Muslims have consciously constructed a personality of what a new president should be. This would be a man who is able to retrieve the lost sense of security and maintain a semi-secular character of the state.
The voter today is placed between two polar opposites, whether to choose security and the secular state (Ahmed Shafik), or simply fall back on an extremist religious-based state (Mohamed Morsi). There is absolutely no need to fake the election’s results, the sixteen months of transition were enough to reshape the priorities of the voter in the interest of the SCAF. Meanwhile, three revolutionists candidates managed to gain more than 9 million votes all together, however these votes were weakened by dividing them into three candidates which enabled Morsi and Shafik qualify for a second round although having less votes.
In general, the first round results of election is worth studying. Islamists in the parliamentary elections gained more than 18 million votes enabling them to dominate the parliament by about 73% of the total seats. However according to the official results, both Islamists candidates (Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood) and Abdel Moneim Abo El-fetoh (the independent Islamist runner) have both together gained about 9.7 million votes. The almost 50% of decline in the vote to Islamists counts explains a big dissatisfaction of the Islamists performance over the past months and might illustrate a possible future collapse of the current islamists domination on the political arena. On the other hand, a surprising rise of Hamdeen Sabbahy, the leftists runner ranked the third, making about 4.7 million votes shows a rise of the left wing in Egypt after long disappearance since Saddat’s time.
The cheerless reality states that the dream of achieving a real democratic state is at risk or at least, not ready at the moment. Egyptians are literally squeezed between founding a religious fascism or reproducing a military fascism once more. The battle in the runoff will no longer be between the person of Morsi or the person of Shafik regardless of the promises they may offer to the voters, the battle will however be on the identity of the state.
There is no doubt that Egyptians have stepped miles onto the realm of democracy. They struggled and won unprecedented rights and gains but there is also no doubt that the fight for democracy is still far from where present day Egypt stands at the moment.
________________________
Abdallah Hendawy is an Egyptian activist. He holds a BA in business administration and advanced certificates in human rights. He is a trainer in fields of human rights and civic engagement, has conducted workshops in several countries, and worked in different international organizations. At the moment he is doing an MA degree in peace and conflict studies and also writes regularly to local newspapers as a political commentator.
This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 4 Jun 2012.
Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TMS: Egypt: Is Democracy Still Possible?, is included. Thank you.
If you enjoyed this article, please donate to TMS to join the growing list of TMS Supporters.
This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 License.
One Response to “Egypt: Is Democracy Still Possible?”
Read more
Click here to go to the current weekly digest or pick another article:
MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA:
Democracy is a system that requires a tremendous amount of time. The path of democracy is a long and winding road. Give people enough time.
Democracy is not a goal because as the society constantly evolves, so does their democracy. (Perhaps some people may say that democracy is an evolving goal.)
People learn democracy from a countless number of their trials and errors. From time to time they do vote for a candidate due to “incredible reasons.” Some people, for instance, vote for a candidate because the candidate is a beautiful lady or a handsome gentleman. Some people vote for a candidate because the name of their pets and that of the candidate are the same. Some people vote for a candidate because their hobbies and those of the candidate are the same. In addition, be aware of the weakest point of democracy: People can vote to destroy their democracy by their (absolute or relative) majority of voting. Democracy can be destroyed by the democratic procedure. This was what Germans did before WWII.
Regardless of all that, however, trust in people. Trust in them is the very foundation of democracy. Or introduce a philosopher king? The introduction of a philosopher king is a path of (and toward) dictatorship. Any dictator considers himself as the wise ruler. Egyptians have just completed the “experience of the self-proclaimed wise ruler.”
A new era of the Egyptian history has just begun.