Egypt: An attempt to understand

Foreign Policy magazine published an article entitled “The idiot’s guide to Egypt’s elections” commenting on the early results of the first round of the Egyptian presidential election. This article poked fun at the polls that had been announced in the weeks prior to the elections regarding the presidential candidates and their popularity, as the election results represented a surprise to these polls, as well as many other people, not just western observers, but even the Egyptian political and media elite, and this shock is still lingering today. All of the analysis over the past weeks focused on the expected electoral battle between Amr Moussa and Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh, however the election results brought three unexpected candidates to the fore, namely Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohamed Mursi, who himself was serving as a replacement to original candidate Khairat al-Shater, as well as former prime minister Ahmed Shafiq and Nasserite Hamdeen Sabahi; whilst Aboul Fotouh and Moussa trailed them in the polls. Whilst some estimates indicated that the Muslim Brotherhood’s political and electoral machinery would push Mursi into a strong election position, former Prime Minister Shafiq’s showing was a surprise, particularly as he was prime minister for less than two weeks before former president Mubarak took the decision to appoint Omar Suleiman as his vice president in light of the intensifying popular demonstration following 25 January. As for Sabahi, his electoral showing was also a surprise, particularly in light of his lack of a strong political, media and electoral machinery to support him, in comparison with the other major candidates. So what happened? Why was the political analysis leading up to the first round of the presidential elections so wrong? Were the political elite out of touch with the views of the electorate? Did people change their minds during the last week prior to the elections, which is something that happens at every election? There are many questions that should be put to the political elite and observers in order to ensure that there is a realistic view and analysis based on facts and public opinion. In the midst of such questions, there are several observations that may somewhat explain the surprises that we have witnesses at the first round of the presidential elections. Perhaps the most prominent such observation is the delusion or false impression that is given by following the comments and responses on social networking websites such as Facebook and Twitter, not to mention their influence on public opinion. Although we are not rejecting the important role played by social networking websites, particularly with regards to communication between political activists, these are like somebody looking at their own reflection in the mirror, or even talking to themselves. This is because those who participate on such websites naturally gravitate to their own friends or supporters of their own political ideology or trend, and so they share the same views and make the same statements, and although the general public may be aware of this, such views and statements do not necessarily reflect their own. Secondly, the two major candidates who it has officially been announced will take part in the presidential run-off are backed by strong political and electoral machinery, whilst the other candidates more resemble contesters on the Arab TV talent show “Star Academy”, being dependent on the public vote and particularly the media. This is something that may work on a television program, however during an electoral campaign the candidate with the strongest electoral machinery, including delegates on various committees and a presence in the villages and towns, will undoubtedly have a head start on his competitors. All the firmly established democratic experiences are based on parties that have strong electoral machinery. In addition to this, the results of the first round of the presidential elections – according to the reading of some analysts and observers – reflects a political reality, namely that society is split between two poles, whilst a new rising power that is pushing for change has entered the scene in between these two poles, and this is represented by the 25 January youth and their allies, however they require time and strong political work to become a genuine political force capable of competing in and winning elections with serious candidates. Whilst we appreciate the state of frustration that has seized the “revolutionaries” who were hoping for different election results that reflected the state of change in Egypt, the final election outcome is a positive one, and nobody can deny that many Egyptians were very happy to take part, for the first time, in free elections whose results were not known beforehand. Regardless of who emerges victorious at the presidential run-off, nobody can confront the public opinion that is held by the majority of Egyptian society, which rejects the imposition of a religious state, as well as a return to the practices of the former regime. Whichever of the two presidential candidates competing in the run-off is best able to reassure the electorate on this issue, will most likely emerge victorious.