Democracy and Elections in Egypt: The 2005 Vote Analyzed

Introduction: Elections as a Measure of Democracy

When analyzing the political environment in Egypt, one of the most important questions concerns the nature of its political regime. This paper presents an assessment of the level of democratization in Egypt by analyzing the elections that took place there in 2005. Elections are a significant indicator of the level of democratization of a country, and this is why the research presented here is focused on electoral practice.

Democracy is seen by Western countries as the best governing alternative, as it guarantees equality and freedom to every citizen. The level of democratization of a country is a strong indicator of how developed that country is, and its position in international politics is greatly influenced by how democratic its institutions are. In international politics, democracy signals the values a country respects, and democratic countries are often seen as partners of the West given their shared commitment to equality and freedom.

The respect for human rights and principles of equality reflects how developed a country is, and the level of development is closely linked to the level of democratization. Elections represent a democratic practice that allows citizens to choose their representatives, and the freedom of elections is a guarantee of each citizen's right to choose and to stand for office. Freedom of elections is therefore an indicator of the political freedom of a country and of its level of democratization. Based on this argument, this paper analyzes the 2005 elections in Egypt and how free and fair they were, arguing that the level of democratization of Egypt can be determined by examining its electoral process.

Egypt's Political Structure and Party System

Political analysts characterize Egypt as a limited democracy, taking into consideration the fact that only some parties are allowed to participate in elections. As noted above, the freedom to choose and be chosen is a strong indicator of the level of democratization of a country. Analyzing Egyptian elections over the past decades, one finds relatively few changes in the political environment, and the absence of alternation in government suggests that the electoral process is not as free as the government claims. Political alternation in government is a natural phenomenon in healthy democracies, and the persistent lack of it can be a sign of a less democratic electoral process.

Although the political system in Egypt is formally divided into four branches — president, cabinet, legislature, and court system — power is concentrated in the hands of the president, who is elected for a term of six years. The president has the power to dissolve the other three institutions, and this concentration of power, combined with the lack of effective checks on the executive, is highly undemocratic. The president also appoints the governors of Egypt's 26 governorates, which grants him substantial control over local government as well.

The Arab Socialist Union represents the greatest political force in Egypt and, from 1962 to 1976, it was the only legal political party. After 1976, other parties were permitted to enter the political scene, but not all parties were allowed. The political scene remains controlled, as there are political groups that are not permitted to participate in elections.^[1] Considering this situation, the results of the 2005 elections came as little surprise to the Egyptian electorate. However, the significant gains made by the Muslim Brotherhood, a militant Islamist group, can be interpreted as an indicator of the electorate's desire for change.

The 2005 Presidential Election Results

The results of the 2005 elections held few surprises, as President Hosni Mubarak was once again elected president. Mubarak was in his late seventies at the time and had been president of Egypt since 1981. His victory, while reassuring to Egypt's Western allies — particularly the United States — demonstrated that there was little room for change in Egyptian politics. Mubarak won the September 2005 election with almost 85% of the vote. He was followed by Ayman Nour, the most prominent member of the opposition and leader of the al-Ghad party, who gathered less than 8% of the vote. The third candidate, Noman Gamaa of the al-Wafd party, achieved less than 3%.^[2] Given the enormous disparity between the candidates' vote shares, questioning the fairness of the 2005 elections is entirely natural.

The political situation in Egypt was far from stable, especially after the attacks conducted by radical Islamists in Sharm el-Sheikh in 2005. The main threat perceived by Western countries was that Islamist groups could gather the support of the majority of the population and thereby come to power through democratic means. Yet this is an inherent risk of democracy, and failing to respect the will of the people represents a violation of democracy's core principles. It was partly the fear that radical Islamist groups would come to power in Egypt — as happened in Iran — that led Western democracies to be less insistent on demanding fully free and fair elections.