Reform in Egypt and the Islamic Brotherhood Party

Reform in Egypt and the Islamic Brotherhood Party

The purpose of this paper is to discuss Egypt as a democratic country and analyze the strength of their democracy in light of the recent boycotts done by opposition parties. A democracy is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary is as, " a government by the people exercised either directly or through and by elected representatives." An effective democracy requires a strong system of law and legal principles implemented with impartiality. Favoritism towards one political party or another will weaken the basic foundation that democracy is built on. According to Sean Wilentz, "Democracy is nothing without the rule of law administered by and independent judiciary; yet it is also diminished and threatened when that rule favors one or more portions of the citizenry" (Wilentz). The system of democracy in Egypt is still in its developmental stages as the boycotts and other protests of recent elections demonstrate. This essay will uncover the hindrances as they relate to the Egyptian electoral process and propose how these obstacles can be improved for the future.

2. How Close is the Egyptian Electoral System to Democracy?

Egypt's current electoral system is a system that holds elections for political office but historically the democratic process had been obstructed. For example in 2005, Egypt held its first multi-candidate Presidential election (Sharp 1).

President Hosni Mubarak was elected with 88% of the vote, and many alleged that corruption had taken place (Sharp 5). A significant factor stimulating the controversy was that in recent years Mubarak had run in uncontested elections and each time winning the elections by a majority vote. Within the last four elections, an uncontested Mubarak had received anywhere between 93% and 98% of the votes (Sharp 1). With these results, Egypt's system of democracy appeared to be developing far behind other Arab countries such as Iran, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and the West Bank and Gaza Strip (Sharp 1).

Considering that the Constitutional Amendment to Article 76 to allow multi-candidate elections was proposed by Mubarak, the presumption would be that this was a positive step towards the development of the Egyptian democratic process, since each of the previous elections had been uncontested. However, there was one caveat -- the Amendment did not permit any candidate to just appear on the ballot with a showing of support by the voters. The Amendment required that in order for independent candidates to run for election, the candidate had to receive a minimum of 250 supporting votes from elected politicians drawn from the People's Assembly, the Shura Council (upper house), and the provincial councils (Sharp 2).

Many argued that this requirement prevented the members of the Muslim Brotherhood, who are independent candidates, from running for office (Sharp 2). The overall effect that the Amendment had on the ability of the independent candidate to run was a negative one. Moreover, the principle of favoritism that will hinder a democracy was present with implementation of this Amendment and the possibility of change through the Amendment was restricted.

The restrictions on the independent party to run were not the only party that the Amendment place restrictions on. In the 2005 election, candidates representing opposing that are legally recognized parties were required to be a member of their party's leadership (Sharp 2).

For future elections, a member of a legally recognized opposing party would be required to be licensed for the five years preceding the election and would be required to show at least a 5% support from members of the upper and lower houses of parliament (Sharp 1). In addition, the Presidential Electoral Commission (PEC) was implemented to supervise the electoral process. Fifty percent of the PEC was elected by parliament and its members were comprised of former judges and other public officials (Sharp 1). The PEC was the central agent in the electoral process as they have the power to approve or deny nominations, supervise elections procedures, and tally the final results which is final and not subject to appeal (Sharp 1).

The implementation of the PEC drew much controversy regarding the Egyptian electoral process. Many critics argued that power that the PEC could ultimately placed the organization above the law (Sharp 1). The discord was that critics believed that the PEC had the power to approve or disapprove a candidate that had previously satisfied the initial requirements to run in an election. Furthermore, the fact that the PEC could approve or disapprove the final results without being subject to approval troubled critics since the people ultimately did not have the final vote in the electoral process.

As these facts demonstrate, the democratic process in Egypt despite the fact that it is now a multi-candidate process, is not without its flaws. The Amendment to Article 76 of the Constitution that opened the process up to other candidates at the same time placed restrictions on the other candidates before they could appear on the ballot. While restrictions and preliminary requirements are to be expected, those that unreasonably burden the candidate's likelihood of appearing on the ballot are suspect. Furthermore, the implementation of the FEC to review the entire process and vote to approve it, adds an element to the process that detracts from its functioning effectively as a democracy.

So how close is the Egyptian election system to democracy? The answer to this question is a relative one, but here is no doubt that the Egyptian system has a long journey before they attain a healthy democratic system. There is always a risk of corruption when a single person has been in power for an extended period of time such as Mubarak has. The risk is one that results from the power of the people to vote on removing or retaining their leader in despite the ability to cast their votes -- the power that their votes have. Egypt has an electoral and system where votes are cast in favor of a candidate, but Mubarak has been in office for over 28 years (Associated Press). It begs the question as to whether the people have voted the same man to the same position for over 28 years. A fair system of democracy will never permit a single person to remain in office for over 28 years if it is contrary to the will of the voters for such is contrary to what a system of democracy represents.

3. Who Is the Muslim Brotherhood?

The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is a political group in Egypt whose standing in elections is that of an independent party (Sharp 2). The Brotherhood began was founded in 1928 in Isma'iliya Egypt by Hassan al-Banna as a social organization (Mohammed and Medley, 693). Over the next 10 years, the Brotherhood become more actively involved in politics and took strong opposition to British presence in Egyptian government and eventually began a violent movement against the British presence (Calasanti 3). Ultimately the Egyptian government disbanded the Brotherhood and imprisoned many of its members in 1949 (Calasanti 3).

Over the next 20 years, political tension continued between the Brotherhood and Egypt which included an assassination attempt of the President by the brotherhood (Calasanti 4). Thousands members of the Brotherhood were arrested and some were executed (Calasanti 4). These tensions between the Brotherhood and the government would persist; ultimately the founder of the Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna, faced assassination by the government (Calasanti, 17). The current regime renounced violence as a political approach in the 1970s (Arrott).

The goal of the Brotherhood through its actions was a re-Islamization of society (Calasanti, 11). Today, the Brotherhood has become known as an organization that supports democracy as a political institution and has been frequently interpreted as a moderate non-violent organization (Calasanti, 15). Over the years, the Brotherhood has won the favor of the public and been elected to many Parliamentary seats in Egypt (Calasanti, 17). The response from the government has been less favorable -- it has officially dismantled the Brotherhood as a political party in opposition (Calasanti, 17).

Despite its disbandment, the Brotherhood has remained a strong political presence in the elections processes in Egypt. In 2005, the Brotherhood won at least 76 seats and was on pace to control 20%-25% of the total Parliament in Egypt which was at that time 454 members (Otterman). The Brotherhood, who had been officially banned as a political group since 1954, was permitted to participate in the 2005 elections and won a strong favoring (Otterman). This demonstrated that the Brotherhood still maintained a strong political following among the public despite the extreme opposition by the government. However, the obstacles that the Brotherhood had faced would resurface again in the 2010 elections.

In October 2010, it was reported that over 70 members of the Brotherhood had been arrested (Arrott). The arrest took place approximately one month prior to the 2010 election that was set to take place on November 24, 2010. The arrest of the 70 members brought the total to approximately 250 members of the Organization who had been arrested and placed in custody in the months preceding the election (Arrott). At the time of this report on October 27, 2010, the Brotherhood spoke out against boycotting the upcoming election, but projected a rather optimistic attitude towards resolving the conflict that confronted them. Still, in light of this optimistic attitude, they did not deny that it would oppose the anti-government in other ways (Arrott). Senior Brotherhood leader, Essam el-Eryan commented, "What is urgent and a priority is to change the rules of the political game. We are ready to accommodate with any real political system…but we are living in a police state."

On December 1, 2010, it was reported that the Brotherhood planned to boycott the 2010 elections run offs (CNN Newswire). The boycott is being held as a protest to the irregularities in the first round of voting held on November 24, 2010. (CNN Newswire).

The Brotherhood did not win a single seat in Parliament in the 2010 election after having won 88 seats in 2005, while Egypt's ruling party, the Democratic National Party, won 217 seats in the first round of voting (CNN Newswire).

The results of the 2010 elections represent a stark difference between the support that the Brotherhood had gained in the past two elections. For example, in 2000, the Brotherhood won 19 seats in the People's Assembly by running as independents and establishing coalitions with secular groups (Pan). Five years later, the Brotherhood won 88 seats in the Parliament and their total presence was estimated to be around 25% of the Parliament's 454 members (CNN Newsire;

Otterman). In 2010, the Brotherhood did not win any seats in the Parliament.

The drastic diminishing presence of the Brotherhood in Egyptian politics could be related to a number of factors. Critics would cite to the passage of the Constitutional Amendment to Article 76 that was proposed in 2005 by President Mubarak and approved by a majority vote of the people. Recall, that the Amendment caused a number of changes in the electoral process, for example the institution of the FEC as the organization that supervises and approves the elections process and the votes cast. The changes that went into effect at that time created additional requirements for new candidates or candidates of independent political parties that desire to run for office, as discussed earlier. These restrictions made it especially difficult for a new candidate with little to no political following as one of these restrictions require that the candidate obtain a 5% support from both the upper and lower houses and hold license for five years (Sharp 2).

One can only assume what the reason is behind the difference in the election results for members of the Brotherhood from 2000 to 2005 and in 2010. The number of arrests and detentions prior to the election, not surprisingly, has had a negative effect on the election outcome being more favorable for the Brotherhood. Obviously and as evidenced by their boycott, the members of the Brotherhood do not believe that their diminished presence in the Parliament was by electoral vote alone.

4. Who Supports the Muslim Brotherhood?

The Muslim Brotherhood today is supported by the people of Egypt. In 2005, the Brotherhood in 2005 won a total of 88 seats in Parliament which equates to approximately 25% of the total seats (CNN Newsire; Otterman). While at first glance, this may not seem like a significant number, in light of the opposition that the Brotherhood faces from the government this number shows that they have a significant following from the people of Egypt. In addition, the Brotherhood's public support increased in the two prior elections -- from winning 19 seats in 2001, (Pan) to winning 88 seats in 2005. One could have easily deduced that had the controversy not erupted regarding the 2010 elections that the Brotherhood would have increased their presence and representation in the Parliament. However, in light the state of the electoral process in Egypt, the natural result did not occur and the Brotherhood did not win one seat this term.

5.

In Light of All the Controversy, What Were the Election Results?

As this report was being researched, it was reported that the President of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, and his Democratic National Party clinched control of 4/5 of Parliament or at least 90% of the available seats (Hamzawy). The ultimate result was that the share of opposition and independent seats fell from 24% in 2005 to less than 10% as a result of the current election (Hamzawy). Based on these current results and the predictions for the run off elections, the National Democratic Party, will control the People's Assembly for the next five years (Hamzawy).

The one sided election results occur in light of the fact that the Brotherhood held a boycott to contest the election results after they did not win a single Parliamentary seat and after over 250 members were arrested and jailed in October 2010 (Arrott). The Wafd Party, the opposition, joined the Brotherhood in protest of the election (Hamzawy). The election results are being questioned in all aspects by critics worldwide who protest their legitimacy and the actions of the government that preceded the election. Actions that raise concern were the harassment of domestic observers, local and international media such that the election is being criticized around the world (Hamzawy).

Critics of the election results allege fraud and denouncing the election results stating that the process lacked fairness, competitiveness, and democracy (Hamzawy). Critics of the election process state election of a one sided Parliament demonstrate that the motives of Mubarak and the Democratic National Party were to exclude all opposition and gain full control over the government. The results of the election and controversy surrounding the electoral process will undoubted remain under heated opposition for weeks and months to come.

5. How Did President Hosini Mubarak Remain in Power for So Long?

Hosni "Muhammad" Mubarak became the President of Egypt on October 6, 1981 (American-Israeli). At that time he instituted an economic recovery program and entered into a peace treaty with Israel (American-Israeli). He succeeded in office following the assassination of Anwar el-Sadat and his tenure is the longest of any Egyptian president since the ouster of the King in the 1950s (Associated Press). Over the years, Mubarak has been vigorously opposed by the Brotherhood, whom he eventually caused to be disbanded. With the disbanding of his strongest opposition and growing and sustaining solidarity of the Democratic National Party, Mubarak has succeeded in office for over 28 years. For most of those years he ran uncontested, until in 2005, Mubarak proposed an Amendment to Article 76 of the Constitution that would provide for multi-candidate elections. Still, in the election that followed the Amendment -- the current election -- Mubarak has won the election with overwhelming support.

So what is it about Mubarak that has resulted in him remaining in office for over 28 years? Some would say that his extensive military background has helped him. Surprisingly, opponents of his policy might actually agree and argue that his longevity has everything to do with his ability to exercise a degree of militancy in getting what he wants. The bigger picture here, however, is that without an effective system of democracy, an electoral system will fail. Mubarak's 28+ consecutive years in office may have some relationship to his being strategic and dominating, but it has more to do with a system that is not working as it should to keep the balance of power in check. A democratic system is one that puts the power literally in the hands of the people. While no democratic system is perfect, those that operate under a viable democratic system are able to avoid having one individual rule over their government for longer than they would like to see him rule.

6. What Is Position of United States Toward the Egyptian Electoral Process?

On September 7, 2005, President Bush called for an international monitoring of the Presidential election in Egypt stating "as with rules that follow for a real campaign" (Sharp). This plan was subsequently rejected by Egypt calling it an infringement on its national sovereignty (Sharp 4). There is no doubt that the electoral process poses an opportunity U.S./Egyptian relations and to promote democracy in the region (Sharp 6). The overwhelming victory by Mubarak puts the U.S. In the difficult position of praising Mubarak for his reform efforts, while calling for more transparency in future elections (Sharp 6). What would be the incentive for the U.S. To become involved in the electoral process of a government whose leader has clearly proposed a plan to institute reform regarding the elections process? Would the U.S. be overstepping its boundaries and becoming the Judge as to whether the Egyptian electoral system is operating effectively? There are arguments in the affirmative and in the negative for both sides of this issue.

7. If the U.S. Promotes Election Reform in Egypt Would it Be Over Stepping Its Boundaries or Advocating for Human Rights?

President Obama has adopted a rather different approach in involving the U.S. In the Egyptian electoral process. As he prepared to visit Cairo in June 2009, President Obama signaled that while he would mention American concerns about human rights in Egypt, he would not challenge Mr. Mubarak too sharply calling him a force for stability and good in the Middle East, and stating that he did not regard Mr. Mubarak as an authoritarian leader (Associated Press). Some will agree with President Obama while others will agree with President Bush as the following discussion demonstrates.

Those that agree with Obama will take the position that each country's system and leadership are to be respected for what it is and how it operates. In other words, the proponents of this position would argue that the human rights argument does not apply to the electoral process particularly if no threat to human life or safety exists. They would take into account the fact that Mubarak proposed and passed Constitutional reform, without judging the effectiveness of the reform. Proponents of this position would agree that every country operates under a different system of government, and that to use U.S. standard and a measuring rod for what a properly functioning system of democracy is does not take into account the other country's cultural, political, or economical diversity. The argument is that every country is comprised of different variables and to assert that the U.S. system is the model for a system of democracy is an arrogant approach to address what may only be a problem in the U.S. point-of-view. Finally, a concern with sovereignty arises when the issue of whether the U.S. should promote democracy. The argument is that each country has the right to maintain its own system of government without interference from foreign nations. When a foreign nation is permitted to impose its beliefs regarding government operations on other nation's the system of sovereignty is disrupted and can result in a breakdown of the international relations between the two nations.