WATANI International
26 November 2010
Over the past few months, the Egyptian street has been the scene of huge controversy concerning the parliamentary elections taking place today. There has been a wide divergence over questions including Egyptian expatriates’ right to vote, women’s quota, prerogatives of the High Electoral Committee (HEC), international monitoring and others. Since Hafez Abu-Seada, Secretary General of the Egyptian Organisation for Human Rights (EOHR) is one of the staunch defenders of democracy and citizenship rights, Watani was keen to discuss with him a host of issues in relation to the current political situation.
The government has approved in principle to grant Egyptian expatriates the right to vote in the upcoming presidential elections. Why did it refrain from applying the decision to the legislative elections?
A number of NGOs have defended the right of Egyptian expatriates to vote. The approval to grant Egyptian expatriates the right to vote in the 2011 presidential elections via Egyptian embassies and the Internet is a move in the right direction. The precondition for exercising this right is that there should be mechanisms in place to guarantee free and fair elections. Parliamentary elections should be conducted in a climate of transparency that allows for real representation of various parties and political forces. We need to realistically recognise the imbalances and defects characterising the Egyptian political scene.
How do you assess the stance of the National Council for Human Rights (NCHR) on the issue of the freedom to practice political rights?
To be frank, the fact that the NCHR has not approved this right is a real setback in terms of the council’s role in protecting people’s rights and freedoms.
How do you see the amendment of constitutional article 88, which now stipulates that elections be held in a single day, under the supervision of the HEC rather than the judiciary?
There are two arguments regarding this article: the first calls for full judiciary supervision to guarantee the impartiality of the elections. The second accepts the supervision by the HEC, while the judiciary should play the role of the final arbiter. But to guarantee the impartiality of the HEC, however, it has to include members of opposition parties and employees independent of government control, not to mention the necessity to put into practice global measures of transparency.
In light of both the current composition of the HEC which includes judicial rather than political figures and the absence of full judiciary supervision, are there sufficient guarantees for fair elections?
The fact that Egyptian society trusts the judiciary stands behind the idea of full judiciary supervision. The media and NGOs should be allowed access to polling stations if the government is to prove its commitment to transparency. Egypt is home to some 500 reporters and correspondents fully trained in covering elections. By the same token, court rulings should be respected. There should be no place for the infamous rule of “the legislative council is the master of its own decisions” often used to disregard court rulings in relation to electoral results.
Do you agree with those calling for international monitoring? Why did the NCHR change its position on this question?
Dr Boutros Boutros-Ghali, head of the NCHR, admitted in the past that international monitoring does not represent foreign intervention in Egypt’s internal affairs. Rather, he added, this has become a characteristic of modern democratic societies. It is well-known that Egypt takes part in the international teams monitoring elections in Tunisia and Sudan. But the NCHR is now taking a stance consistent with that of the HEC. In my view, international monitoring is one of the measures to guarantee free and fair elections.
Is local monitoring an adequate guarantee for fair elections?
Local monitoring is governed by two factors, the composition of the HEC and the activation of the role of the judiciary as the final arbiter when disputes arise over the electoral results.
Does the civil society have a plan to monitor the forthcoming elections?
Absolutely. Around 125 NGOs have formulated a plan to monitor the elections. They trained some 1500 lawyers from across Egypt for this purpose.
If the security apparatus prevents you from monitoring the elections, what would you do then?
In this case we would appeal to the Court of Cassation.
Do you find women##s quota a progressive step? And do you think the quota system should be stretched to cover Copts?
Women’s quota is a measure of positive discrimination. It aims to give women a better opportunity to be represented in Parliament. But setting a quota of seats to Copts would imply some sort of religious discrimination and would further divide our society. Moreover, it contradicts with citizenship principles because political practice should by no means depend on religious affiliation.