Commentary
Amr Hamzawy
{
"authors": [
"Amr Hamzawy"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Egypt"
],
"topics": [
"Political Reform"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
Egypt's Opposition Misled by Fixation with Mubarak’s Son
Opposition groups can only counter the regime’s hegemony by letting go of their obsession with Gamal Mubarak’s succession and addressing other issues at the core of the upcoming elections.
By Amr Hamzawy
Published on Dec 1, 2009
Source: The National
Upon closer look, however, Mr Nour’s rallying cry is troubling. In gearing up for elections, the opposition has demonstrated a near complete inability to prioritise the issues essential to its political future, and has squandered its efforts trying to prevent Gamal Mubarak’s succession.
Egypt’s opposition groups, including both legal parties and the Muslim Brotherhood, have been in disarray since the regime introduced stifling constitutional amendments in 2007. These measures limit the oversight powers of the judiciary in elections, fail to set term limits on the presidential mandate, and ban religiously affiliated political activities.
While opposition forces have been exclusively focused on the one issue – Gamal Mubarak’s possible ascendancy – the Egyptian regime has been carefully creating an environment which will sustain its rule. The ruling elite is no newcomer to this game. They have consistently manipulated the political process by preventing the opposition from registering candidates in elections, obstructing the campaign process, and fomenting violence on election day.
In contrast to the ruling elite’s clear direction, the opposition has no guiding compass and is left wandering through the challenges posed by the political agenda in Egypt. Their failure cannot be solely attributed to the regime’s repressive measures – a great part of the responsibility belongs to the opposition parties themselves.
Since 2005, parties including the liberal Wafd party, Ayman Nour’s Ghad party and the Democratic Front, as well as the Muslim Brotherhood (which is banned but has de facto representation in parliament) have all failed in two major tasks: formulating an elections platform and clear vision for Egypt’s political development, and applying sufficient pressure on the regime for political and economic reform.
Despite its acquisition of an unprecedented 88 parliamentary seats in the 2005 elections, the Muslim Brotherhood has yet to push for serious reform of the political system. Several concerns also remain unresolved in Egyptian and international public opinion regarding the Brotherhood’s positions on equal citizenship rights for Copts and Muslims, women’s participation in politics and freedom of expression.
The opposition parties urgently need to tackle several issues to position themselves for the 2010 and 2011 elections. First, groups have to clarify their stance on the question of domestic and international monitoring of elections. Especially with regard to the latter, the opposition remains divided.
Second, they have to prioritise calls for the abolition of the emergency law in effect in Egypt since 1981. Finally, parties should be more attuned to new political opportunities, expanding grassroots activities to capitalise on growing protest sentiment among wide segments of the population who are suffering from deteriorating social and economic conditions.
With Egypt’s declining GDP growth, the unemployment rate reaching 10.3 per cent, a poverty rate of 20 per cent, and an alarming level of debt – 76 per cent of GDP – citizens are in desperate need of competent political parties.
The implications of the upcoming elections will, of course, extend beyond Egypt’s borders. In light of the regime’s recent political manoeuvring and the opposition’s stagnation, the 2010 and 2011 elections in Egypt will test the Obama administration’s stance on democracy in the Middle East. Its position will either demonstrate a commitment to the incumbent regime of the Mubaraks as a strategic ally in a turbulent region regardless of its domestic behaviour, or signal pressure to create better conditions for democratic reform and political competition in Egypt.
The first signals from the Obama administration are not encouraging; the administration has so far put the promotion of democracy low on its list of priorities. Washington has only raised the issue of reform in the context of concessions that Mr Mubarak has already made. The Obama administration has also cut aid to numerous actors and organisations in civil society.
The campaign organised by Mr Nour is a step in the right direction for the opposition in Egypt, but he and other activists would be wise to adjust their agenda. Only by letting go of their obsession with Gamal Mubarak’s succession and addressing other issues at the core of the upcoming elections can opposition groups counter the regime’s hegemony.
About the Author
Amr Hamzawy
Director, Middle East Program
Amr Hamzawy is a senior fellow and the director of the Carnegie Middle East Program. His research and writings focus on governance in the Middle East and North Africa, social vulnerability, and the different roles of governments and civil societies in the region.
- Iran Is Pushing Its Neighbors Toward the United States
- U.S. Peace Mediation in the Middle East: Lessons for the Gaza Peace PlanPaper
Amr Hamzawy, Sarah Yerkes, Kathryn Selfe
Recent Work
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.
More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- A New Generation Takes Power in NepalArticle
The incoming government has swept Nepal’s election. The real work begins now.
Amish Raj Mulmi
- After Ilia II: What Will a New Patriarch Mean for Georgia?Commentary
The front-runner to succeed Ilia II, Metropolitan Shio, is prone to harsh anti-Western rhetoric and frequent criticism of “liberal ideologies” that he claims threaten the Georgian state. This raises fears that under his leadership the Georgian Orthodox Church will lose its unifying role and become an instrument of ultraconservative ideology.
Bashir Kitachaev
- Tokayev’s New Constitution Is a Bet on Stability—At Freedom’s ExpenseCommentary
Kazakhstan’s new constitution is an embodiment of the ruling elite’s fears and a self-serving attempt to preserve the status quo while they still can.
Serik Beysembaev
- The EU Needs a Third Way in IranCommentary
European reactions to the war in Iran have lost sight of wider political dynamics. The EU must position itself for the next phase of the crisis without giving up on its principles.
Richard Youngs
- The Kremlin Is Destroying Its Own System of Coerced VotingCommentary
The use of technology to mobilize Russians to vote—a system tied to the relative material well-being of the electorate, its high dependence on the state, and a far-reaching system of digital control—is breaking down.
Andrey Pertsev
