America never asks the democratic regimes in Western Europe to receive international monitors for checking the integrity of the electoral process. This is justified by the fact that the latter regimes do not resort to maneuvering, manipulation and cheating. Washington also does not ask its ally Israel to prove its ability to manage any polls, considering it is classified by the Americans as being “the best democracy” if not “the only democracy” in the region, despite its racism towards the Palestinians in the territories occupied in 1948.
However, these American principles in no way apply to the Egyptian partner and friend, as the latter has become accustomed to the series of pressures exercised by Washington - based on the artificial separation between the facets of partnership and its requirements - and Israel’s similar practices through complaints - for example - from Egypt’s “disregard” of the smuggling of arms into Gaza.
Based on the United States’ standards, “our democracies” are not democratic. Although political and military cooperation was seen with Arab countries throughout many stages, Washington still questions their integrity and neutrality when it comes to the election of parliaments and local councils in them.
As for the last attempt undertaken by the American administration to define three conditions guaranteeing the integrity of the elections of the People’s Assembly (parliament) in Egypt on November 28, it obviously raised the discontent of the ruling National Democratic Party – which is the first beneficiary from the weakness and division of the opposition parties, the banning of the Muslim Brotherhood group and the pursuit of its leaders and elements.
This places us in the presence of two non-conflicting notions: The imposition of “integrity” based on the perception of the international observers overseeing the electoral process is an act of interference and a tutelage that could be opposed because it affects the Egyptian state’s sovereignty. On the other hand, the integrity of the state is the object of examination, as long as the National Democratic Party is wanted to earn the majority of the seats in parliament and to extend the representational legitimacy of the ruling regime. More importantly, the process in itself is a passageway toward the upcoming presidential elections in 2011, elections in which the opposition does not foresee any possible battle, except at the level of the mystery surrounding the mechanism which will be adopted to bequeath the rule.
The majority of the opposition parties – as is the case in any Arab country – are glad to play on the string of American pressures, at least to narrow the margin of manipulation during the November 28 elections. At this point, the talk is not about possible manipulation, considering it is a given in all the experiences of the enlarged ruling parties on arenas lacking the minimum level of democracy, at a time when corruption is affecting everyone and when the opposition parties are corroding and quietly requesting help from the American side which used to be the “imperialistic enemy of the people.” In this context, it has not been too long since Islamists in Egypt engaged in talks with US diplomats, not to request wheat allocations, but to request the recognition of a political role which they would come to enjoy if Washington were to ever consider changing “the rules of the game.”
The National Party’s rejection of Washington’s request to allow international observers in the polling centers and during the counting process will not affect the “partnership” between Egypt and the United States, just like the American assessment of religious freedoms is expected to raise Cairo’s anger but not to carry any repercussions at the level of these relations, while awaiting additional pressures. Although this proves the extent of the Egyptian official “tolerance” toward American interference, it also reveals the wager of all those opposing the regime on time, while awaiting some sort of mysterious development or an unknown “compensation prize.” This is due to the fact that when the country climbs up the ladder of losses, the rope of interferences is unreservedly dropped.
On the eve of the parliamentary elections in Egypt, it would be hard to speculate about the outcome which will be reaped by the ruling party, but also about the number of rounds to track down the Muslim Brotherhood, rounds which have become some sort of an exercise in the series to contain the banned group. Still, while it is likely that the “democratic game” will stand still out of fear from the unknown, it is more frightening to see this game remaining outside the context of any reform and to see the crises accumulating with everyone standing by and watching.
In reality, whoever justifies the preference for sluggish reform by using the pretext of the preparation for a calm presidential battle, is not only disregarding the buildup of domestic crises, but also the fact that Egypt is changing whenever the neighboring crises are exerting pressures on its role, and that partnerships of interest are not managed by good intentions solely.
However, these American principles in no way apply to the Egyptian partner and friend, as the latter has become accustomed to the series of pressures exercised by Washington - based on the artificial separation between the facets of partnership and its requirements - and Israel’s similar practices through complaints - for example - from Egypt’s “disregard” of the smuggling of arms into Gaza.
Based on the United States’ standards, “our democracies” are not democratic. Although political and military cooperation was seen with Arab countries throughout many stages, Washington still questions their integrity and neutrality when it comes to the election of parliaments and local councils in them.
As for the last attempt undertaken by the American administration to define three conditions guaranteeing the integrity of the elections of the People’s Assembly (parliament) in Egypt on November 28, it obviously raised the discontent of the ruling National Democratic Party – which is the first beneficiary from the weakness and division of the opposition parties, the banning of the Muslim Brotherhood group and the pursuit of its leaders and elements.
This places us in the presence of two non-conflicting notions: The imposition of “integrity” based on the perception of the international observers overseeing the electoral process is an act of interference and a tutelage that could be opposed because it affects the Egyptian state’s sovereignty. On the other hand, the integrity of the state is the object of examination, as long as the National Democratic Party is wanted to earn the majority of the seats in parliament and to extend the representational legitimacy of the ruling regime. More importantly, the process in itself is a passageway toward the upcoming presidential elections in 2011, elections in which the opposition does not foresee any possible battle, except at the level of the mystery surrounding the mechanism which will be adopted to bequeath the rule.
The majority of the opposition parties – as is the case in any Arab country – are glad to play on the string of American pressures, at least to narrow the margin of manipulation during the November 28 elections. At this point, the talk is not about possible manipulation, considering it is a given in all the experiences of the enlarged ruling parties on arenas lacking the minimum level of democracy, at a time when corruption is affecting everyone and when the opposition parties are corroding and quietly requesting help from the American side which used to be the “imperialistic enemy of the people.” In this context, it has not been too long since Islamists in Egypt engaged in talks with US diplomats, not to request wheat allocations, but to request the recognition of a political role which they would come to enjoy if Washington were to ever consider changing “the rules of the game.”
The National Party’s rejection of Washington’s request to allow international observers in the polling centers and during the counting process will not affect the “partnership” between Egypt and the United States, just like the American assessment of religious freedoms is expected to raise Cairo’s anger but not to carry any repercussions at the level of these relations, while awaiting additional pressures. Although this proves the extent of the Egyptian official “tolerance” toward American interference, it also reveals the wager of all those opposing the regime on time, while awaiting some sort of mysterious development or an unknown “compensation prize.” This is due to the fact that when the country climbs up the ladder of losses, the rope of interferences is unreservedly dropped.
On the eve of the parliamentary elections in Egypt, it would be hard to speculate about the outcome which will be reaped by the ruling party, but also about the number of rounds to track down the Muslim Brotherhood, rounds which have become some sort of an exercise in the series to contain the banned group. Still, while it is likely that the “democratic game” will stand still out of fear from the unknown, it is more frightening to see this game remaining outside the context of any reform and to see the crises accumulating with everyone standing by and watching.
In reality, whoever justifies the preference for sluggish reform by using the pretext of the preparation for a calm presidential battle, is not only disregarding the buildup of domestic crises, but also the fact that Egypt is changing whenever the neighboring crises are exerting pressures on its role, and that partnerships of interest are not managed by good intentions solely.
No comments:
Post a Comment