EGYPT: Doubts about fairness and competitiveness of elections | Babylon & Beyond | Los Angeles Times

With elections for the lower house of parliament scheduled for Nov. 28 and for the presidency in 2011, Egyptian officials are emphasizing that the country does not need international observers. Its elections, they say, will proceed according to well-established laws and constitutional precepts.

Unfortunately, these statements don’t reflect the country’s history: one with rigged and often violent elections. In fact, Egyptians’ trust in formal politics — never great — has deteriorated to the point that several opposition parties will boycott the elections, and many members of participating parties do not want to legitimize the existing system.

Assuming no international observers are present, how can Egyptians and outsiders tell how fair the elections are in the end? One important signal will be whether the Higher Electoral Commission extends credentials to the approximately 14,000 Egyptian civil society activists seeking to monitor them. In June elections for the small upper house of parliament, the commission gave credentials to only a small percentage of monitors at the eleventh hour, and then failed to instruct poll workers to let them in.

Other factors — including violence — also raise doubts about how fair and competitive the elections will be. In the past, the Ministry of Interior has surrounded certain polling places — where a prominent pro-government candidate faced a strong opposition competitor — with security cordons, leading to violence as voters attempted to get in. In addition, voters, monitors and journalists have been intimidated and physically assaulted by thugs supporting specific candidates while police looked away.

New measures targeting Egypt‘s largest opposition group, the Muslim Brotherhood, present another concern. In 2005, the Brotherhood’s members campaigned openly, using the slogan “Islam is the solution,” and contesting almost one-third of the parliamentary seats. Now the government has outlawed its slogan, police are rounding up its supporters, and the electoral commission has denied registration to one-quarter of its proposed candidates.

The government, meanwhile, has registered all of the hopefuls of co-opted or weak secular opposition parties. This presents the ruling National Democratic Party with a dilemma: It needs to win at least two-thirds of the parliament, but it also wants to create the image of real competition. With the Brotherhood on the run and more credible secular parties — such as the liberal Ghad and Democratic Front parties — staging a boycott, a strong electoral showing by captive or weakened parties such as the Tagammu and the Wafd would be a sure sign of electoral meddling.

Media coverage is emerging as another major issue, given the government’s recent measures, such as requiring official clearance before satellite television channels can report live from anywhere in Egypt and before cellphone providers can send aggregate text messages to their users, a technique the opposition relies on to mobilize supporters. Initial reports by Egyptian non-governmental organizations also indicate a clear bias in media coverage toward the NDP and its candidates.

Perhaps the most interesting outcome this weekend will be the U.S. reaction to Egypt’s elections. Washington tried unsuccessfully to persuade President Hosni Mubarak to accept international monitors and to lift the state of emergency under which Egypt has been ruled for three decades. Although Mubarak — age 82 and ailing — continues to stonewall these efforts, they have real value for the U.S. administration. Not only does the Egyptian public follow President Obama’s statements closely, but Mubarak’s successor — whoever he will be — undoubtedly does as well, as he gauges whether external actors support citizens’ demands for democratic change and to what extent he must accommodate them.

EGYPT: Doubts about fairness and competitiveness of elections | Babylon & Beyond | Los Angeles Times.

Related Articles

• On eve of Egypt polls, Mubarak’s ruling party tightens grip on opposition – Christian Science Monitor (news.google.com)

EGYPT: Beyond mechanics of flawed elections, deep problems afflict nation’s political scene Los Angeles Times

Following is an analysis from the Carnegie Endowment:  As Egypt‘s Nov. 28 parliamentary vote approaches, heated debates have highlighted pitfalls of the election process.

Obvious challenges to free and fair elections include the regime’s restriction on competition between political parties — sanctioned by the country’s constitutional and legal electoral framework — and the ruling party’s tight grip on state institutions and close bond with the president.

Other problems include the numerous obstacles to security and organization facing opposition parties and movements as they try to field candidates and communicate with citizens, as well as the limited local oversight of elections and the absence of international monitoring.

But these represent only a sliver of the election difficulties Egypt faces. Although the absence of electoral fairness and transparency perpetuated by the elite is no doubt important, other, perhaps deeper, shortcomings have surfaced in the current campaign.

First, with the elections only a few weeks away, none of Egypt’s main political parties that are participating in the elections — or the Muslim Brotherhood — have announced their electoral platforms. The National Democratic Party of Egypt and opposition leaders continue to voice vague positions on social, political and economic issues.

These hollow party programs allow candidates to vainly echo their parties’ slogans (such as “citizens come first” and “Islam is the solution”) without saying how they would affect the lives of average Egyptians. These generalizations also make the race more a competition among individuals with well-financed campaigns — such as elite businesspeople, union members, representatives of highly influential families and groups in rural areas, and candidates from state and security institutions — than a serious discussion about policy differences.

Second, regardless of the degree to which the election is transparent, the parties themselves remain opaque. Egyptian voters lack sufficient knowledge of the mechanisms political parties use to choose their candidates. The liberal opposition Wafd Party released little information to supporters about how its general assembly narrowly voted to participate in the elections and the party’s subsequent selection of candidates.

Transparency also was absent from the Muslim Brotherhood’s procedures. Although the Brotherhood’s “Guidance Office” announced that 98% of the party voted to participate in the elections, some party figures have since said the number was closer to 50%.

By contrast, on their face, the NDP’s mechanisms to choose candidates appear transparent and fair. Candidates are chosen in a three-phase process: First, electoral primaries are held, whereby active NDP members (2.5 million people) choose candidates. During a second phase, the results of primaries are added to the results of opinion polls conducted by the party, a rare trend among parties holding primaries. In the third phase, the names of candidates are referred to NDP leaders for their final decision.

If examined closely, it becomes clear the transparency is largely cremonial. In reality, the party’s leadership chooses candidates, giving only partial consideration to primary results or opinion polls. As in the past, the NDP aims to select key individuals and representatives of powerful interest groups.

Third, a 2007 law grants the Higher Electoral Commission full authority to oversee all aspects of the electoral process, such as updating and publishing voter lists; registering candidates; determining the date the campaign begins; monitoring campaign expenses; ensuring candidates do not use religious or discriminatory slogans, state institutions or places of worship in their campaigns; ensuring neutral media coverage; and granting licenses for election observers.

Though the commission has numerous roles on paper, but in practice it encounters major problems, not even counting the NDP’s ability to influence the outcome of the electoral process.

For example, in a clear violation of the commission’s decision that the campaign would start mid-month, electoral banners and posters began appearing on Egypt’s streets after candidates registered to run. Candidates from the NDP, the Wafd, and the Muslim Brotherhood also have disregarded and publicly criticized the commission’s decision that no candidate should spend more than 200,000 Egyptian pounds on the campaign.

The Brotherhood has undoubtedly made the most controversial move to belittle the commission’s decisions. Its determination to use the slogan “Islam is the solution” blatantly violates the law prohibiting the use of religious slogans in campaigns, among others.

By using this slogan, the Brotherhood also ignores Article 5 of Egypt’s constitution, which prohibits any religion-based political activity. Such a decision stirs legitimate doubt about the Brotherhood’s respect for Egypt’s constitutional and legal framework.

If, as these actions suggest, the Brotherhood reluctantly accepts this framework to participate in the elections while attempting to undermine its components, Egyptian politics as a whole, and the Brotherhood in particular, risk becoming an even weaker democracy. No one will be the winner then.

— Amr Hamzawy in Beirut and Cairo

EGYPT: Beyond mechanics of flawed elections, deep problems afflict nation’s political scene | Babylon & Beyond | Los Angeles Times.

Related Articles

• US urges Egypt to allow foreign election observers (reuters.com)

Arab elections: Not much of a choice | The Economist

EGYPT, Jordan and Bahrain (see article), three of the West’s closest Arab allies, are all poised to hold general elections. No big surprises are expected, largely because the rulers of each have found ways to keep loyalists in charge and critics at bay. None of their parliaments has much say, in any case. Even so, the contests provide a rare platform for organised dissent and, just as important, for testing the regimes’ skill at boxing in challengers, particularly Islamists, without provoking too strong a backlash from their supporters.

With its 85m people, its strategic position, its cultural influence among Arabs and an ageing leader with no obvious successor, Egypt’s poll, in late November (the precise date is yet to be announced) will have much the biggest impact. After more than three decades in power, President Hosni Mubarak’s National Democratic Party (NDP) conducts the political game to his liking. Its friends run the police, the security service, the courts and official boards that do such things as license other parties and oversee elections. NDP people have the deepest pockets, so the party can hand out favours at election time. Best of all, the NDP can count on the opposition to split into bickering factions, assuring itself of another smooth return to office.

The score of recognised opposition parties preparing for next month’s poll are all small. The most powerful, the Muslim Brotherhood, is technically illegal, so its candidates run as “independents”. Earlier this year it joined three of the largest secular parties in a united front to demand guarantees that the voting would be fair. The government ignored them, as it has ignored pleas from Western governments to admit independent election monitors. But this united front has been crumbling, as the Brothers have joined a rush by most of Egypt’s smaller parties, including some that are suspected of concluding back-room deals with the NDP for token seats, to register candidates.

via Arab elections: Not much of a choice | The Economist.

Related Articles

• Egypt’s election campaign shows change is sluggish, but on the way (guardian.co.uk)
• Egypt’s Opposition Splits on Elections Boycott (time.com)

Sound The Sharia Alarm! Campbell’s Makes Halal Soups | TPMMuckraker

Earlier this year, Campbell Canada introduced a line of halal-certified soups. The 15 soups comply with Islamic dietary regulations which, much like kosher regulations, prohibit certain foods and define the right way to slaughter animals.

The line, which includes low fat cream of broccoli and vegetarian vegetable, was certified by the Islamic Society of North America, which has been certifying halal foods since 1988.

To some people, that’s just more evidence that Sharia is coming to North America — this time, via the grocery store.

“M-m-good for the Islamists. Not so yummy for the rest of us,” reads the blog of Scaramouche, which broke the news Tuesday, some eight months after Campbell’s launched the line.

Robert Spencer, who writes Jihadwatch.org and has been saying for years that ISNA is tied to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood,* quickly echoed the alarm.

“So why is Campbell’s Soup rushing to do its bidding?” Spencer wrote on Tuesday. “‘M-M-Muslim Brotherhood Good?'”

Park51 opponent Pamela Geller is now calling for a boycott of Campbell’s.

The Tea Party Nation is on board, too, tweeting today, ” Campbell’s now making Muslim approved soups. Mmmmm Mmmmm not good. No more campbells for me.”

via Sound The Sharia Alarm! Campbell’s Makes Halal Soups | TPMMuckraker.

Related Articles

• Campbell’s Soup surrenders to Islamic juggernaut (salon.com)
• Campbell Introduces Limited Edition Yellow and Orange Tomato Soup Varieties (eon.businesswire.com)