Egypt Joins the Party

Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak has called for "direct, multiparty presidential elections this year for the first time in the nation's history." This at least appears to be an about-face for the president, who only recently imprisoned a prominent liberal reformer, Ayman Nour, who had been leading a campaign aimed at just such a result. U.S. pressure may well have been a factor. Last Friday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice cancelled a planned trip to Cairo to protest Nour's treatment, indicating that she hoped to see signs of reform in Egypt.

Whatever the reasons behind the move, the larger issue is whether Mubarak means it, or whether he will use the appearance of reform to legitimize his continued rule (he's likely to win even a contested election in the September vote) and enhance his son's chances for succeeding him as president. Of course, that will depend on the details of any coming constitutional reform. The NYT quotes a skeptical political analyst named Ibrahim Eissa, who believes that "This is a way [for Mubarak] to improve his image with the Americans and to please them with some formal changes." Eissa regards the move as "deception."

The U.S. was pretty low-key about Mubarak's move. "We are hopeful," said a State Department spokesman, "but until we know exactly what the government is embracing, it is too early to declare that it is a major change."

Ayman Nour of the liberal, free-market Party of Tomorrow said carefully from prison that Mubarak's statement was "an important step towards the party's and the Egyptian people's demand for extensive constitutional reform."

The NYT's page-one story noted that Mubarak's announcement "follows historical elections in Iraq and Palestine as well as the first limited nationwide municipal polls in Saudi Arabia, leaving the region bubbling with expectations for political reform."

Comments

[Gary Gunnels]

The details of the election appear to point to a non-election election. After all, Mubarak is in no way threatened with actual removal of office, nor are any of his cronies, etc.

[thoreau]

Well, to the extent that there's anything real about this election, can we at least make sure that Mubarak's campaign budget is cut by $2 billion? (IIRC, $2 billion is the amount that we annually send to Mubarak's Swiss bank account, um, I mean, the Egyptian government.)

[Mo]

When I emailed Charles regarding this story, I mentioned that my gut pointed to a case of Mubarak doing this in order to legitimize his own power and provide a way to legitimize Gamel's ascention. Gamel has the name recognition and political machine behind him where he would have a significant advantage against all comers. My hope is that this will embolden democracy advocates and liberal parties to push harder and work to negate this advantage. I don't care if Mubarak cements rule for his lifetime, that was already the case, but if this plan backfires and gets a liberal leader after he is gone or even 10 years from now it will be an improvement. Now if they could only start limiting the terms of their presidents and reduce executive power, we'd be cooking with gas. Obviously a positive step and it points to greater self-rule in the long run.

[Ken Shultz]

These elections will only be free and fair to the extent that Mubarak feels pressured to hold free and fair elections. Assuming high expectations are a form of pressure, then, we should all expect the best of Egypt's nascent election.

"...During speaking engagements around the country, Mr. Mubarak's son Gamal, 41, head of the governing political committee, faced pointed questions from students like whether he planned to run for president and, if he did, whether he would win with the same astonishing margins his father received."

Ha!

[Mo]

thoreau,
That $2 billion is primarily military aid. This allows Mubarak to skim from his own books more and cut down on domestic military spending.

[*]

"multiparty presidential elections"

Hey, we should try that too!

[Brett]

I don't care what form the $2 billion takes, I'm all for thoreau's idea of making it disappear.

[kwais]

Great, they are a democracy now, they don't need our 2 Billion a year any more. (I thought it was 3 Billion, matched by 3 Billion to Israel).

Hey guess what, if we don't need to give those billions to Egypt, maybe we don't need to give them to Israel anymore either.

Can we also not give that 20 billion to Africa for Aids stuff also, as that lady on an earlier post proved that there is not really an Aids epidemic there, they just are confusing it with the Flu.

Are we still giving Russia money? 'Cause if we are we shouldn't give them money either untill they return to democracy. Then whey they do, they won't need the money anymore.

[kwais]

I see this Egypt thing as the perfect time to stop subsidizing tyranny, corruption, and in the case of Egypt, anti American newspaper editorials.

[Barry P.]

The military aid basically involves US taxpayers buying arms from US producers, and giving said arms to the Egyptians.

Ceasing this would obviously rile the MIC too much for it to ever stop.

[Jamie]

Sadly, 2 Billion is a drop in the bucket for the defense industry, wouldn't be worth shouting over.

Kwais, not sure if you are serious, but its a good point that most foreign aid simply gives badly behaving kleptocracies incentives to continue their tyranny.

[gaius marius]

until we know exactly what the government is embracing, it is too early to declare that it is a major change.

first honest thing i've heard from a government spokesman in a while. 🙂

[thoreau]

gaius, I have to ask: Will elections in Egypt be a sign that the Egyptians are beginning their descent into the chaos of unbridled individualism? Is this the beginning of the end of Egyptian civilization?