Saad Eddin Ibrahim, the Egyptian-American activist who spent well over a year in jail between 2000 and 2003 before a case against him was dismissed by Egypt’s highest appellate court, is backing an unlikely amendment to the Egyptian constitution that would allow multiple candidates to be selected:
“If given the chance, I personally want to run (for president) to break the barrier of fear and intimidation,” Ibrahim told The Associated Press. “Not that I have real hopes of success, but I want to show my fellow Egyptians that nothing should be a political taboo.”
Under the current constitution, a presidential candidate is selected by the People’s Assembly, Egypt’s parliament, and then the public votes either “yes” or “no” in a referendum. In the current political climate where the ruling National Democratic Party controls over 80% of seats, this means that there can only be NDP candidates and that no one is likely to be selected to run against Hosni Mubarak, who’s been president for nearly 24 years.
As the story explains, it is unlikely that this amendment, which is backed by 650 activists who signed a petition requesting it, will pass. There have been rumors that the NDP was considering accepting it to run a lame duck NDP candidate against the president to make a show that it is democratic. But surely they thought better of it considering that a) it would look ridiculous, b) it might create an expectation of debates, or at least different platforms, between candidates and c) they are unlikely to encourage the idea that there could ever be anyone better than Mubarak to lead the country.
The truth is the current system — outside of the immediate political conjecture — should be replaced by direct elections of the president, as you find in most countries that at least pretend to be democracies. (Strangely, that doesn’t technically include the US, since the presidential elections there are indirect. In fact, technically the “electors” are meeting on 13 December to elect the next US president. But that’s another story.) After all if parliament retains control of what candidates can present themselves, there can never be a chance for underdogs to enter the political limelight (think Nader, Buchanan, Perot in the US.) Direct presidential elections would give the existing parties as well as movements like the Muslim Brotherhood a chance to campaign in a way they really never have before, and would crystallize symbolically the idea that there could be a president who is not from the ruling party, or indeed who is not from the ruling military junta.
Aside from this, the elections that are coming up in fall of 2005 are going to be very important. After 24 years of Mubarak it is time for him to resign, even if you’re of the opinion he’s done a good job. Otherwise we’re going to see the Bourguibasation of Egypt at a time when the country is in dire need of young blood, a new direction and effective leadership. At this point, no matter about how you feel about Mubarak, it should be clear that it’s time for a fresh start — even if it’s still not democratic or another army general. Time is running out.
I thought only the Maldives used the “election first, vote later” plan. Evidently I was wrong.
At any rate, a Sa’ad Eddin Ibrahim run would be interesting but, as you say, probably not realistic. Is there any chance he might find a safe seat and run for parliament next year as an independent? He wouldn’t be able to accomplish too much but he might at least have a bigger platform.
I don’t know what chances he would have running as an independent without a party machine behind him. The publisher of the Cairo Times, Hisham Kassem (who currently runs a liberal daily backed by big businessmen called Masri Al Youm), tried to run on a human rights platform in 2000 in the central Qasr Al Ayni district of Cairo, which basically grabs some of the wealthiest residents of the country. Unfortunately for him, he was running against Hossam Badrawi, a doctor and businessman who is one of the leading members of the new generation of NDP politicians. Badrawi could outspend Kassem easily and could also use the party machine to get votes. For instance, buses are organised to take civil servants to vote for the NDP. Most people would probably comply because they don’t want to risk losing their job.
The other thing is that Saad Eddin Ibrahim, while popular with foreigners, is not popular in Egypt. This is partly because of the success of the defamation campaign against him a few years ago, partly because of his pro-American views (he could be seen, and easily portrayed, as an Egyptian Chalabi), and partly because of his reputation for being arrogant. In particular, Ibrahim is not that popular with the left-wing opposition or the human rights community, who remember him as someone that once was close to the powers that be.
Ironically, the best chance a reformist democrat would have to get into parliament is to run in the countryside, where family allegiances usually determine who gets elected. This has been the case for instance with some Wafd party leaders, who come from big land-owning families and can count on the support of their tenant farmers and other families in those districts.
[…] Ø±Ø´Ø Ù†Ù�سه علنا بهدÙ� “كسر Øاجز الخوÙ�”: انتخبوا سعدâ�¬Ø§Ù„دين ابراهيم! وسط كل هذا، […]
[…] Ø±Ø´Ø Ù†Ù�سه علنا بهدÙ� “كسر Øاجز الخوÙ�”: انتخبوا سعدâ�¬Ø§Ù„دين ابراهيم! وسط كل هذا، […]