Egypt’s presidential election was monitored by several teams of international election observers, the two most prominent from Democracy International (DI)—a U.S.-based NGO with funding from USAID—and the EU. Though both missions criticized the political context surrounding the vote, the tone and even the observations in their preliminary statements diverged on certain aspects of the election.
Their respective titles captured the difference well. DI titled its preliminary findings “Disregard for Egyptians’ Rights and Freedoms Prevents Genuine, Democratic Presidential Election.” The EU headed its statement with “Presidential Election Administered in Line With the Law, in an Environment Falling Short of Constitutional Principles.” This variation in emphasis appeared throughout the findings.
Political Context
On the overall political context, both DI and the EU expressed concerns about repression, contrasting the actions of the Egyptian authorities with the rights guaranteed in the Egyptian constitution. The language from DI was stronger: “Although Egypt’s constitution provides for these rights and freedoms, suppression of dissent has severely compromised the broader electoral environment and undermined possibilities for free political participation.” The EU used more indirect language: “While the new Constitution sets out a wide-ranging catalogue of fundamental rights, the respect for rights falls short of constitutional principles. Freedoms of association, assembly and expression are areas of concern, including in the context of this election.”
The EU also used softer language to describe political exclusion in Egypt, writing, “While broad support for the roadmap is enduring, based on the widely shared belief that stability should be a priority, opposition to the roadmap or to the environment in which it is implemented has resulted in the non-participation of some stakeholders, thus undermining universal participation in the election.” DI offered a more critical take, saying, “Selective application of the law, systematic suppression of opposition protests, and rapid escalation of force by security forces have discouraged participation in the political process.”
Though both missions mentioned the protest law, closing space for civil society and opposition parties, and use of force by the security services, neither statement referenced numbers of detainees (estimated in the tens of thousands) and deaths (estimated in the thousands) as a result of political repression in the year leading up to the vote.
Media Environment
Regarding the media environment during the campaign, DI stated clearly that “Egyptian media coverage of the election process strongly favored Abdel Fattah El-Sisi.” The findings noted, “During the campaign period, state-run media are said to have given equal interview airtime to both candidates, but the approach and discourse applied to each candidate differed significantly.” The EU adopted a more positive tone. According to its statement, “The two candidates were allocated about half of the time and space in the vast majority of the media monitored and dominated news programmes, talk shows and other broadcasts. Major channels interviewed both candidates, and state and private media were mostly neutral in their coverage of the campaign, but less so in direct interviews.”
Voting Procedures
Coverage of voting procedures was characterized by the same divergence. DI took particular issue with the presence of security forces during the vote, reporting “a significant number of instances of police and military officials as well as unidentified plainclothed armed personnel entering and remaining within polling stations during the voting process.” According to DI, “This was particularly troubling in this election, where one candidate was perceived as strongly supported by the military.” The EU, meanwhile, stated that “the general impression of the EU EOM [Election Observation Mission] observers was that military and law enforcement personnel respected PEC [Presidential Election Commission] guidelines. Out of a total of 1,694 visits to polling stations, unauthorised presence of such personnel was reported in 77 and 63 cases, respectively.”
DI also claimed that some of its observers had “difficulty gaining access to, or had limited access to, some polling places.” The statement continued, “Although judges and security officials have the right to check observers’ credentials, there were many instances where the process of verifying documents took several minutes, during which observers were not allowed entry to polling stations. In some cases DI observers were limited to five minutes in polling stations, and in several other cases DI observers were denied access to polling locations altogether.”
The EU assessed treatment of its observers, and the voting more broadly, in a positive light. Its preliminary findings noted that “EU EOM observers made 1,389 observations during voting hours of all three election days. The overall conduct of the voting was generally assessed as ‘good’ or ‘very good’ by observers, despite minor procedural infractions reported.”
The EU statement observed some violations, reporting that “secrecy of the vote could have been undermined in 23 observations and ballot box stuffing was noted in four cases. On election days in some governorates a number of journalists were reportedly obstructed in their work, arrested and detained while covering the polling.”
Voter Extension
Both missions criticized the last-minute decision to extend voting for a third day. According to DI, “The PEC’s decision late on the second day of the election to extend voting in the presidential election for a third day did not appear to be justified. DI observers across the country reported no impediments to voting during the first two days of balloting that would necessitate an additional day. Last-minute decisions about important election procedures, such as a decision to extend polling by an additional day, should be made only in extraordinary circumstances.” The EU stated that “this unpredictable act of the PEC, while not against the law, caused unnecessary uncertainty in the electoral process with regard, inter alia, to potential procedural and logistical implications.”
Turnout
With Abdel Fattah el-Sisi expected to win the election by a landslide, turnout had an important role to play in the election. DI criticized the government’s approach to participation, alleging that “throughout this election process, both state and private media have engaged in a relentless campaign to bolster turnout, often equating abstention with treason and stigmatizing those with opinions differing from the state narrative.” The EU also expressed guarded concern, noting that “a representative of the PEC stated to the media that fines for voters who do not vote would be enforced as provided for by the PEL [Presidential Election Law]. The extended voting period combined with the above statement could be perceived as an attempt to boost turnout while voting was still on-going.”
DI did not cite specific turnout numbers and said to the media, “We do not know what the turnout for this election was” and have “no means to evaluate it.” The EU report stated that “following three days of voting, the PEC informed the EU EOM that voter turnout was at 47.3 per cent at the time of writing.”