March 10, 2014
I do not normally engage in
hypotheticals. But questions of “what if?” open the door to self-examination, to
lessons learned from experience. It is on this basis that I want to ask “what
if?” to evaluate the Egyptian constitutional referendum, which passed in
January.
First, let us discuss the
negative aspects of the balloting, so that we avoid them in upcoming elections.
Addressing these negatives will remind us that a trickle-down approach to political
reform, drip by drip, has not worked. In a society where many have rural roots,
with agriculture being a pillar of their lives, citizens have become accustomed
to irrigation by immersion—not dripping.
Negatives
1. What if some of the ministers had refrained from
revealing how they would vote in the constitutional referendum and did not try
to promote their views? What if those in a position of power had not wasted the
opportunity? What if they had emphasized that elections must be run neutrally, without
direct involvement from the government? And that the government will be one for
all Egyptians, even those it disagrees with?
2. What if media coverage had been objective,
presenting opinions of both supporters and opponents of the constitution? What
if the media had allocated more time to explaining the constitution's articles
rather than more time to incitement? (I believe the document has many positive
aspects that failed to gain adequate attention—another lost opportunity.)
3. What if the High Elections Commission had agreed to
the participation of adequate numbers of civil society representatives to
respond to complaints and irregularities? What if it had released permits early
enough before the referendum so that those organizations would be able to
conduct their work more effectively?
4. What if security forces had refrained from
arresting opponents of the constitution without justification? What if posters urging a ‘no’ vote on the
constitution had been permitted, as was the case with those urging a yes-vote?
5. What if there had been transparency in revealing
the funding behind these posters?
I am well aware that the
current tense political climate and sharp polarization do not allow for calm
reflection. I am also aware that, on the ground, there were justifications that
encouraged the use of exceptional measures—some of which may not have been
necessary. Those with authority were compelled to adopt such measures out of
caution and as a result of a heightened climate of precaution given the
existence of an opposition that uses violence, including assassination and
random explosions to terrify citizens.
Improvements, however, remain
necessary. Critical evaluation (as opposed to justifications) is the key to
moving forward, through the gate which Egypt must pass to build a modern
democratic state. The succession of lost opportunities, though, remains one of
the prominent characteristics of the transitional stage and will likely
continue to be so.
It is from this starting point
that I say that if Egypt had avoided these questions, approval of the
referendum would have been between 75 and 80 percent; participation would have
gone up from 38 percent to between 45 to 50 percent. This result would have
been better for the political roadmap, and better for Egypt's international
image, which receives more friendly fire than hostile attack.
Positives
Just as there are negative
aspects we do not wish to see in future elections, there are positive ones we
should build on, especially as the constitutional articles regarding the
permanent commission for elections are implemented.
1. What if Egypt did not have a national
identification number? What if the election was not based on the national identification
smart card?
2. What if the ballots were not counted in the polling
station branches and instead were grouped for counting in the central polling
stations?
3. What if there was no presence of international and
local election observers?
4. What if Egyptians abroad are not granted the right
to vote, along with residents in governorates different from the one cited in
their national identification card?
5. What if there was not a website that presents rules
and mechanisms to allow election monitoring? What if not website existed to
disseminate referendum and election results, to allow analysis that provide
better understanding of voting behavior?
If these positive practices
were absent, the constitutional referendum participation rate would not have
exceeded 10 percent and allegations would have swirled around the results and
the credibility of the whole process.
These positives are undoubtedly
a result of the January 25, 2011, revolution, which, while they might be
considered by some to be a forgone conclusion, certainly mean a lot. While it
is true that democracy means more than simply conducting fair elections, these
gains can be seen as necessary prerequisites, the continuation of which we must
ensure even if it is insufficient for the democratic transformation we seek. We
must place the list of negatives that occurred during the constitutional
referendum—while appreciating their justifications—squarely in our line of
vision as we prepare for any upcoming election. The white clothes of legitimacy
cannot tolerate any ink stains.
Magued Osman is the CEO and
managing director of the Egyptian Center for Public Opinion Research,
Baseera. This
article originally appeared in Al-Shorouk.