Egyptian Election: Politicians Don't Realise They Could Be Tweeted Out

With the spread of consumer technology like mobiles, the time when voters were relegated to the spectators' seats has gone.

By Amira Nowaira

This comment was published in The Guardian on 26/11/2010

Egyptian legislative elections have always seemed fascinating to watch but hopelessly predictable. The current elections seem to be no exception, although there are indications that the winds of change have started to blow.

For the last 60 years parliamentary elections have been held with admirable regularity. Parliaments with various names, from Nasser's National Assembly to today's People's Assembly, have been in place to prove to the world that we have a functioning democracy.

But democracy often exists only in the eye of the beholder. Successive regimes, from Nasser through Sadat to Mubarak, have all insisted they were democratic. It was no doubt the fault of the citizens themselves if they did not recognise that basic, simple truth.

Not many people now realise that during the Nasser era elections were held and people were urged to go out and vote. True, the National Union, established in 1957, and later the Socialist Union were the only legally recognised parties, and their hold on power was uncontested. But the elections were not rigged. Rigging was unnecessary because the government sifted the candidates before nominating them and giving them its blessing. So it mattered little to the regime whether Mohammed, Ahmed or Laila was finally elected. Like taxes deducted at source, candidates were carefully scrutinised and pruned before they were offered for election.

But the rules of the game have changed since then. The Egyptian government now finds itself facing new challenges threatening its very authority and its monopoly on information and communication.

The ruling National Democratic party, however, seems hopelessly out of touch with the times. It doesn't realise that the day might come when it could be tweeted out of power. Nor is it able to understand that it won't be able to station the country's security forces on the information superhighway as it does on Cairo's ring-roads.

The time when citizens were relegated to the spectator seats is gone. The state can restrict the live coverage of polling stations but it cannot stop people using mobile phones to send photos and videos through web services such as qik.com. Nor can it stop people using blogs, Facebook or Twitter to relay information it doesn't approve of.

Egypt's contradictions may be a source of infinite amusement, but also one of genuine distress. Where else can you find a state of emergency that stays in place for 30 years? The word "emergency" implies a brief, intense situation that should disappear as soon as it is dealt with. But 30 years?

And where else can you find a presidential candidate casting his vote for another instead of himself? This was what the 90-year-old Ahmed El-Sabbahi did in 2005, when he proudly declared that he gave his vote to Mubarak.

More seriously, where else can you find a banned organisation like the Muslim Brotherhood getting high-profile coverage in the media and a sizable representation in the 2005 parliament? If the organisation is illegal and banned, why are they all over the media, giving interviews and making statements?

Where else can you find a nation with more than 50% of its population under the age of 15 that is ruled mostly by septuagenarians and octogenarians? Whenever the ruling NDP tries to indicate its endorsement of the nation's youth, it is actually referring to people in their 50s. One must admit, though, that the NDP deserves marks for consistency at least, for if power is still in the hands of octogenarians in the prime of life, then the 50-year olds of the NDP are green youths still being groomed for their future.

One of the features of the 2010 parliamentary elections to be held tomorrow is that the ruling NDP is standing in many constituencies in opposition to itself. The party, reluctant to upset some of its prominent members, has ended up nominating two, three or even four candidates in the same constituency contesting the same seat along with other non-party candidates. The more the merrier, according to the NDP. And non-NDP candidates may defect to the NDP as soon as its over, as happened after the 2005 parliamentary elections.

So the whole election may boil down to the NDP versus NDP, or the NDP versus the Muslim Brothers. The voters are therefore in the happy position of being able to freely choose either the frying pan of the NDP or the fire of the Muslim Brotherhood (if the Brothers can keep out of jail during the campaign). Women have even more limited options, for the Muslim Brotherhood is by definition a negation of their very existence, unless a woman should decide to turn into an honorary "brother".

A great deal has been said about the newly established 64-seat quota for women to increase their percentage in parliament. I just hope that these women do not become the wallflowers they are intended to be.

When the curtain finally falls, amid the mad cheering and the deafening chants of victory, will this election make any difference to the lives of the 80 million Egyptians who have followed the action mostly from the safe distance of their spectator seats? I doubt it. But while the outcome is assured, I feel sure things will never be the same again. The NDP is well advised to take heed.