Supreme Constitutional Court (SCC) Chair Farouk Sultan's nearly interminable announcement of the outcome of Egypt's presidential election tested his nation's patience. Twitter commentary on his speech's almost mind-numbing detail, while hilarious, masked an underlying nervousness that this was but an effort to wear everyone down preparing the ground for the announcement that the winner was, in fact, General Ahmed Shafik. The speech was an over-wrought defense of the work of the Court. It was also a testy rebuttal of earlier attacks delivered by the Muslim Brotherhood. And it was boring. At one point, I thought that decades from now, we might forget who won the election, but we would never forget Farouk Sultan's speech.
In hindsight, I believe there might have been a logic to Sultan's endless detail. This was, after all, Egypt's first truly democratically contested presidential election. And so his report of incorrect counts, faulty ballots, etc, could be seen as a reminder of the fact that in a democracy elections are always messy affairs. As the old adage goes "elections are like sausage-making. You don't want to see how they're made, but they taste delicious." We don't see the mess in a landslide, but in close contests, the errors born of petty (and not so petty) corruption and human error become all too evident -- remember Florida's "hanging chads" in 2000, or Ohio's Diebold machine malfunctions in 2004.
This was, by any measure, a close contest. Here, too, the SCC's report was a useful reminder of the deep, nationwide divisions in the Egyptian electorate. In the end, one-half of eligible Egyptians voted, and little more than one-half of them chose Mohammed Morsi to lead them. And it is important to note that not all of Morsi's votes came from supporters of the Brotherhood -- many came from those who were quite simply voting against Shafik and the military. So too, many of those who voted for Shafik, were in fact casting a vote against the Brotherhood.
Even those wary of a Muslim Brotherhood win, must acknowledge that history has been made in this openly competitive contest. President-elect Morsi will now occupy the seat once held by Nasser, Sadat, and Mubarak -- but with a difference. If this is to work, there can be no new Pharaoh, nor will the Generals be able to exercise unfettered control -- by themselves, or through a surrogate. Morsi now has a mandate to govern. But he would be wise to proceed with caution.
There are two essential components to making a democracy work -- both involving a recognition of the reality of divisions in society. The losing side, despite their bitter disappointment, must accept the legitimacy of the outcome, and the winning side must accept the reality and legitimate rights of the losing side.
These are the hard tests of democracy and real challenges lay ahead. If we look closely at this election, and indeed everything that has transpired since February of 2011, we can see that Egypt's nascent democracy is still a work in progress. There are clearly two poles in the contest for power--and an emergent third pole in the making.
On the one side there is the Muslim Brotherhood, a powerful national movement, an effective provider of services, and a now proven vote-getter. On the other side is the Supreme Council for the Armed Forces (SCAF) and the elements of Egyptian society they represent. They too have demonstrated that they have supporters and have the capacity to organize. The revolutionary youth remain a potent force, but have recognized their electoral limitations and have embarked on a five-year organizing plan.
In any case, the shape of Egypt's new democracy will be determined by the interplay between these poles -- with no one group being able to claim it represents all Egyptians, or even all those who voted for them in the last election (democracy being a fickle mistress). It is advisable, therefore, that both sides approach this next stage with a degree of humility and that neither side over-reach -- as they unfortunately have in the recent past.
The Muslim Brotherhood set off alarm bells when they tried to exercise too much control, too soon, in Parliament and in the selection of the body that was to write the new Constitution. They then compounded their over-reach when they broke their earlier pledge not to field a presidential candidate and were seen as trying to control everything. This was seen as a step too far. One party control can be a problem in an established and divided democracy, like the United States. How much more so, in an emergent democracy.
For its part, the SCAF created deep concern when, in reaction to the Brotherhood's over-reach, they suspended Parliament and then issued the Supplementary Constitutional Decrees stripping the powers of the presidency and establishing their role as final arbiters of the Constitution.
At this point after the election, the two main established poles of power in Egypt are what they have been all along -- the Brotherhood and the SCAF. The military will seek to maintain as much control as they can, while President Morsi will make a determined effort to wrest as much control as he can. The two groupings will continue to test each other, and the interplay will determine whether or not Egypt moves forward. The test of wills that will now occur will shape the future of Egypt's democracy.
But the real test for the new President and the SCAF will be their ability to perform. The public will have limited patience with their contest for power. At the end of the day our polls show that a majority of Egyptians could care less about which group rules. Uppermost on their minds are jobs, improved health care, better education and a government that can deliver services without corruption. This is the real work of democracy, and, in this context, the election and its outcome mark not the end of a process, but its beginning.
Follow James Zogby on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AAIUSA
The video went viral after being posted on YouTube – accompanied by English subtitles by Memri TV –, with 61,691 views until Thursday night.
“The United States of the Arabs will be restored on the hands of that man [Mursi] and his supporters. The capital of the [Muslim] Caliphate will be Jerusalem with God’s will,” Hegazy said, as the crowds cheered, waving the Egyptian flags along with the flags of the Islamist Hamas group, which rules the Gaza Strip.
“Tomorrow Mursi will liberate Gaza,” the crowds chanted.
“Yes, we will either pray in Jerusalem or we will be martyred there,” Hegazy said.
No, it was NOT. Granted, this time Egyptians had more than one party to vote for & results were not blatantly rigged.
But it takes considerably more than that to make elections "truly democratic". At least, to people who understand what "true democracy" is.
Democracy is best defined as the political regime in which authority to govern comes from the consent of the governed. And, as the medical profession clearly established, "consent" doesn't mean signing a paper (or casting a vote) in ignorance; the only meaningful "consent" is "informed consent", which assumes clear appreciation & understanding of the facts, implications, future consequences of an action, i.e. that the consenting party is endowed with adequate reasoning faculties & is in possession of all relevant facts.
From a sociopolitical perspective, this means freedom of information & expression & the existence of a sound public debate. It also assumes a certain minimum level of education & personal development. None of these prerequisites is present in Egypt: the population is (in statistical -- not individual terms) poorly educated, has been kept in ignorance for decades & has very poor access to information -- let alone capacity for free public debate.
The Egyptian elections were NOT democratic. I do believe democracy will come to Egypt as it'll come everywhere; but it's not there yet -- and the support for Muslim Brotherhood is but a symptom of the disease that continues to affect that country.
4:25 PM CST
@ NTT,
...Nothing more dangerous than a well intentioned idealist...
Let's try this "thought experiment" folk's : Substitute the word "Egypt" for "the United States of America"...
Quote from "NTT" :
"From a sociopolitical perspective, this means freedom of information & expression & the existence of a sound public debate. It also assumes a certain minimum level of education & personal development. None of these prerequisites (are) present in the United States of America: the population is (in statistical -- not individual terms) poorly educated, has been kept in ignorance for decades & has very poor access to information -- let alone capacity for free public debate."
...Now we have an interesting debate.... Your welcome...
J.B.
"
Nothing more dangerous than a moral relativist.
USA has a long tradition of democratic rule. It has constitutional checks & balances, a free press, freedom of expression and a lively public debate. Comparing the US democracy to a country like Egypt is just foolish & adds nothing constructive to the debate.
And it's ***You're*** welcome, not "your welcome".
All those who watched the private and exclusivist event staged on June 30 by the Supreme Constitutional Court (SCC) in Egypt to swear the country's first democratically elected president are witness how the sanctity of the ceremony was violated. In itself the staged event was discourteous and unjust as it meant to deny due dignity and respect to people's mandate.
The right of the media and millions of audience in Egypt and abroad were usurped as all media were disallowed except for one official tv channel. International media needs to expose how the the legacy of seven decades of military rulers using the guise of the so called Supreme "Constitutional" Court is are vehemently trying to deny all respect and decor that Egypt's genuinely elected representatives truly deserve.
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/45982/Egypt/Politics-/Mursi-in-power-A-timeline-of-diminishing-president.aspx
In the meantime, it is very likely that the two strongest competing powers-- not unlike in the US-- will put in rules that limit the potential for a third party to be any real challenge.
Sad, but the people that most fought for freedom are most likely to be denied it under either military or religious tyranny.
What kind of news do you think this bearded man, who wholeheartedly believes that “Islam is the solution,” will bring to your homeland?
Is it indeed so important for you to embrace Iran and distance yourselves from the West? Is it that important for you to smoke a hookah with Hamas’ terrorists while telling Mahmoud Abbas to get lost? Do you really think that you will be saving your collapsing economy by “re-examining” the peace treaty with Israel? Moreover, do you truly believe that terminating the gas deal with Israel is the lifesaver for your dying economy?
And here is yet another question: Are really naïve enough to think that a radical Islamic regime will be free of corruption and ensure your wellbeing? Come on, don’t make us laugh.
Contrary to popular belief, Islam does not at all restrict individual initiative and entrepreneurship. after all, Islam is the religion of trade and commerce!...