Egypt’s election farce
THE FIRST election for president in Egypt’s history
failed to excite most Egyptians, who showed their contempt for a farce
by not voting. The 77 year-old president, Hosni Mubarak, won 89% of the
votes cast in the September poll, which surprised no one. Official
figures showed a 23% turnout, so less than one adult in five voted for
him. Opponents claimed that turnout in the cities was 5%.
After 24 years as president, Mubarak had been forced
to allow an election. But he set the rules to produce one winner -
himself. Previously, Egyptians had been given the ‘choice’ to vote for
or against him in six-yearly referendums. Helped by riot police, secret
police, prison torturers and ballot rigging he won each time.
This year the Egyptian ruling class realised it
could no longer continue in the same way. Anger and opposition have been
bubbling. Although not widespread, there have been strikes over low pay
and privatisation, and protests over the Iraq war, poverty and the lack
of democratic rights. Pressure also came from the US government,
desperately trying to show the ‘flowering democracy’ it claims its
Middle East strategy is producing.
The US regime had always supported Mubarak’s
dictatorial methods but, with growing opposition to its occupation of
Iraq, it now fears mass movements overthrowing its client regimes in
Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. These remain crucial to
US oil supplies. Mubarak was leant on to make concessions to head off
this threat. In January, after the arrest of an opposition politician,
$1bn in US economic aid was withheld and Condoleezza Rice cancelled a
visit to Cairo. Days later Mubarak announced the election.
Candidates affiliated to legal parties were allowed
to stand, automatically excluding the largest opposition force, the
illegal Muslim Brotherhood. Seventeen Brotherhood members sit as
independent MPs. Independent candidates needed the signatures of 65
members of the lower house of parliament, 25 members of the upper house
and ten council members from at least 14 provinces. Since Mubarak’s
National Democratic Party (NDP) dominates both houses of parliament and
most local councils, this would have been almost impossible. To ensure
Mubarak’s victory, only three weeks were allowed for campaigning.
Opponents called it ‘three minutes of freedom’.
These undemocratic rules were put to a referendum in
May, which most parties boycotted in protest. To boost turnout, the
government got publicly salaried clerics to issue a fatwa to vote. One
wealthy supporter reputedly offered a Viagra tablet to every voter in
his district. Despite these contrasting campaign methods, the government
could only claim a 53% turnout - widely accepted as a massive
exaggeration.
Two parties that boycotted the referendum took part
in the election. Al-Ghad (Tomorrow) supports pro-US, pro-’free market’
policies and was legalised last November. Its leader is Ayman Nour, a
wealthy lawyer who had been jailed in January on trumped up charges and
reputedly beaten. Wafd is a long-established liberal party. There has
been speculation that its leader, Noaman Goma’a, did a deal with
Mubarak’s NDP to stand, undermining Nour’s candidacy in return for a
promise that Wafd would gain seats in the parliamentary election later
this autumn.
There were seven other opposition candidates – all
virtually unknown, including a 91 year-old fortune teller wanting to
make fez-wearing compulsory and promising, in the unlikely event of his
victory, to hand back the presidency to Mubarak! Perhaps some were
encouraged to stand by the half-million Egyptian pounds (£50,000)
government contribution to campaign costs.
The Muslim Brotherhood is probably supported by
20-30% of the population. Although banned, its existence has been
tolerated by the regime, allowing it to spread its influence through
schools, professional associations and charities. It has a history of
breaking strikes and opposing militant trade union activity since the
1940s. Leading members of the Brotherhood tend to come from better-off
sections of society. A long-running strike recently took place at an
asbestos factory owned by a Brotherhood member.
It did not call for a boycott of the election,
instead calling for Egyptians to vote for whomever they thought would be
‘a just and fair ruler’. This raises the possibility of a
behind-the-scenes deal, with the Brotherhood helping to boost turnout
(while not supporting Mubarak) and hoping for legality in the future.
Mubarak’s son, Gamal, has admitted meeting Brotherhood members ‘on
numerous occasions’.
There are signs of tensions within the Muslim
Brotherhood. Some older leaders do not want to antagonise Mubarak and
jeopardise the base they have in society. Others want to become a legal
political party. Younger student members have come under pressure from
pro-democracy activists, joining in a number of protests. "I too was
excited by the demonstrations", one student said. "Things were changing
in Egypt. People found the moral courage to stand up. We love Egypt and
are part of it and we had to take part". (Washington Post, 5 June) About
2,000 Brotherhood members were arrested and imprisoned without charge in
August. A few were then released shortly before the election.
Pressure on the Muslim Brotherhood increased with
the formation last December of Kifaya (Enough) by the Egyptian Movement
for Change - a loose umbrella group of different political trends. ‘A
gallery of intellectuals and activists’ demanded the resignation of
Mubarak. It was launched in the house of Abu’l-Ela Madi, a former
Brotherhood member who split from the group in 1996. It includes other
Islamists, journalists and radicals. Kifaya has organised many
demonstrations and protests this year, in the face of vicious beatings
by hired thugs and riot police. However, it has not yet gained a mass
following, several hundred to 3,000 taking part.
It describes itself as "a unique state of national
accord between all Egyptian powers without discrimination or exception…
its role is to employ this national accord to create a national
consensus about the political, economic and social change that Egypt
wants now". (www.harakamasria.net) While calling for rights to
employment, free education and free medical treatment, its programme is
restricted to democratic demands. It would split apart if it advanced
economic and social demands, with the differing class interests of those
involved.
The working class was not prepared to vote in this
pantomime election, but a genie has been let out of a bottle. The open
criticism of Mubarak (and his pro-privatisation banker son, Gamal)
released by the election will not disappear. Workers will gain
confidence to protest, strike and demonstrate.
The very low turnout has denied Mubarak the chance
to cover himself in a veil of legitimacy. His continuing rule remains
dependent on a police state, weakened after the experience of this
election. Bush’s grand plans also lie in tatters. His key regional ally
has not been endorsed by a popular vote.
Forty-four percent of Egyptians live on less than $2
a day. In January 2003, the currency was devalued from 4.2 to 6.15
Egyptian pounds to the dollar, pushing up prices, especially food, by
over 30%. As a result, 6.8 million public-sector employees lost half the
value of their salaries.
A new workers’ party is needed that brings together
struggles against privatisation, poverty, war and repression. Support
has fallen for al-Tagammu (Rally), which had 150,000 members and three
MPs in the late 1970s. It was formed in 1976 as the National Progressive
Unionist Party by various left groups and supporters of the radical
nationalist, Gamal Nasser, around the slogan, ‘Freedom, socialism and
unity’. Like ex-workers’ parties the world over, however, it moved to
the right after the collapse of Stalinism in 1990.
In the 1995 election campaign, ‘socialism’ was
replaced by, "Change in response to the people’s will - against
oppression, corruption and terrorism; for justice, progress and
democracy". Central Committee member, Hussein Abdel-Razek, said: "There
is definitely a trend towards a more practical approach. We can no
longer call for nationalisation or oppose privatisation". (Realism on
the Left, Al-Ahram Weekly, 2-8 November 1995) Although al-Tagammu
retains a few MPs, they are completely ineffectual. It boycotted the
election.
A genuine workers’ party campaigning on a programme
of democratic rights and socialism could gain mass support. It would
give an alternative to the Muslim Brotherhood, currently filling the
vacuum as the main opponents to the corrupt regime. It would expose
capitalist politicians who support democracy only so far as it creates a
more stable climate for continued exploitation. And it could inspire
workers and poor people to organise against their pro-imperialist rulers
to build a socialist federation across the Middle East and North Africa.
Jon Dale
|