Local Elections Confirm Deterioration of Egyptian Politics
The Egyptian government’s crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood in advance of the April 8 local elections was motivated by its determination to exclude the Brotherhood from the 2011 presidential election and is likely to persist until the matter of presidential succession is settled.
Link Copied
Published on Apr 14, 2008
WASHINGTON, Apr 14—The Egyptian government’s crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood in advance of the April 8 local elections was motivated by its determination to exclude the Brotherhood from the 2011 presidential election and is likely to persist until the matter of presidential succession is settled, argue two Carnegie experts.
In Egypt’s Local Elections Farce: Causes and Consequences, Carnegie’s Amr Hamzawy and Mohammed Herzallah argue that Egypt’s controversial April 8 elections underscore the present backward slide and broad deterioration in Egyptian politics.
Key points:
Current social and political unrest in Egypt is not the consequence of reform driven activism like that of 2004 and 2005, but a reaction to worsening economic conditions by independent and discordant activists. The regime’s repressive response—using security forces and various coercive methods to preempt or smother strikes—has failed to stabilize the street. The decentralized nature of these protests makes it more difficult for the regime to contain them, but also prevents the formation of a cohesive opposition movement with clear objectives.
The regime has consistently failed to resolve the problems of relentless inflation, high unemployment, and Egypt's crippled welfare system. Minor steps taken by the government continue to fall short of the comprehensive social and economic reform needed.
The Egyptian regime’s return to authoritarian methods impairs organized political opposition in the country, which in turn erodes the prospects of sustainable national and political recovery. But opposition forces are also partly responsible for their present condition. Their lack of credibility and discipline has undermined their ability to establish a reliable opposition front.
The Brotherhood’s last-minute boycott of the local elections revealed the movement’s lack of consistency in its strategic thinking. The Brotherhood’s decision to boycott these elections conspicuously contradicts its previous commitment to advancing reform through political participation at all costs.
Reflecting on the boycott, the authors strike a cautionary note on the consequences.
“To the degree that the movement intended to retaliate for the regime’s flagrant actions, its decision may not pay off. After all, keeping the Muslim Brotherhood out of the local councils was the intention of the ruling establishment in the first place. What’s more, the movement is setting a dangerous precedent that the regime will certainly keep in mind: through sufficient political persecution and repression, the authorities can count on the Brotherhood to take itself voluntarily out the political equation,” they conclude.
Amr Hamzawy, senior associate and distinguished Egyptian political scientist, previously taught at Cairo University and the Free University of Berlin. Hamzawy has a deep knowledge of Middle East politics and specific expertise on reform in the region. His research interests include the changing dynamics of political participation in the Arab world, and the role of Islamist movements in Arab politics with special attention both to Egypt and the Gulf countries.
Mohammed Herzallah is the junior research fellow for the Carnegie Middle East Program. His research interests include democracy and rule of law, international economic development, and Arab politics.
The Carnegie Middle East Program combines in-depth local knowledge with incisive comparative analysis to examine economic, socio-political, and strategic interests in the Arab world. Through detailed country studies and the exploration of key cross-cutting themes, the Carnegie Middle East Program, in coordination with the Carnegie Middle East Center, provides analysis and recommendations in both English and Arabic that are deeply informed by knowledge and views from the region. The Carnegie Middle East Program has special expertise in political reform and Islamist participation in pluralistic politics throughout the region.
The Carnegie Middle East Center is a public policy think tank and research center based in Beirut, Lebanon. Bringing together senior researchers from the region, the Carnegie Middle East Center aims to better inform the process of political change in the Middle East and deepen understanding of the issues the region and its people face.
The Arab Reform Bulletin addresses political reform in the Middle East. Sent monthly, it offers analysis from U.S.-based and Middle Eastern political experts in English and Arabic, as well as news synopses and resource guides.
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
In supporting Europe’s far-right, MAGA and Russia both want the same thing: a weaker EU. Europe must defend itself without abandoning the openness these forces exploit.
The hybrid warfare landscape is evolving rapidly, leaving policymakers without clear strategies. To better inform their work in addressing emerging challenges, governments must dig deeper into the underlying dynamics at play.
As the EU confronts profound challenges, several leaders have called for fundamental reform to the union’s model—but only modest, superficial changes have resulted. What if Europe really could be reimagined from zero today: What should such a redesigned European order look like?
Far-right leader Marine Le Pen can—and will—run in France’s next presidential election. What does the outcome of her appeal against a 2025 embezzlement conviction mean for the country’s political future?
When Giorgia Meloni very publicly rebuked Donald Trump’s disparaging remarks about her, it surprised many who saw her as a European extension of Trumpism. Is the spat a sign of trouble in the radical right’s transatlantic axis?
