WATANI International
4 September 2011
It made sense that, with the newly gained, post-25-January-Revolution, unrestrained right to form political parties, the political landscape in Egypt should overflow with numerous, varied, new parties. The self-evident problem, however, is that once elections take off, the fragmentation of votes would make for very few winners and a non-defined majority.
Islamist-dominated
Coalitions were thus expected—and needed. They began with what would have appeared an unlikely alliance between the liberal 88-year-old Wafd party and the Muslim Brotherhood political arm, the Freedom and Justice party. This coalition, formed under the name of The Democratic Alliance for the Sake of Egypt, swelled to embrace 34 parties, including the Islamist ones.
The Democratic Alliance was mainly concerned with coordinating efforts on the political, not electoral, level. It came up with a proposal for a new law for parliament other than the one suggested by the ruling Military Council and later widely rejected by most parties. It also drafted a document for the Constitution, which stipulated the civic nature of the State, full citizenship rights, and the right of non-Muslims to be ruled by their own laws where family is concerned.
The stipulation of a civic State and citizenship rights was taken by non-Islamists as no more than an attempt to market a sugar-coated Islamist perspective, since it is an open secret that the raison d’être of political Islam is the establishment of an Islamic State.
Once the important political proposals were drawn, five non-Islamic parties withdrew form the coalition, citing as a reason the “attempted domination of the MB over the coalition”.
The liberals
The second coalition was formed of 14 liberal parties, under the name al-Kutla al-Misriya (The Egyptian Mass). Those calling for non-Islamist rule welcomed the coalition, while Islamists considered it tantamount to a declaration of war and an attempt to terrify Egyptians of the Islamists.
Emad Gad, one of the leaders of the Egyptian Democratic Party which is part of the coalition, said the coalition’s main perspective was a modern, civil Egyptian State based on full citizenship rights, and founded on knowledge and scholarship. The Mass, Dr Gad said, is an inclusive body for all Egyptians and excludes no one. It believes that Egyptians are all equal in rights and duties, and are entitled to proper health care, education, and decent living.
The Egyptian Mass did not mince words about its election outlook. Dr Gad said the member parties in the coalition would coordinate efforts to field candidates for the elections, who would then run under a single motto and logo.
Confirming that the Mass wished to exclude no one, the Free Egyptians’ Ahmed Saïd said that every political faction, especially the MB, tends to overestimate its clout on the political arena, leading to bitter differences and finger-pointing aplenty. The fight for votes resulted in a harsh polarisation along political lines among the Egyptian electorate.
Which brings us to the third and most recently-formed coalition: the Third Way.
Burying ideological differences
The Adl (Justice) party called for the formation of the Third Way coalition as a means to battle the increasing polarisation, bitterness, and fear of the political ‘other’; and focus on rapprochement instead. “At the end of the day,” said Mustafa al-Naggar who is a member of the founding assembly of the coalition, “we all desire the good of Egypt.” The Third Way is still working to swell its ranks; a few parties have joined, but the majority of members so far are independents.
Dr Naggar sees that political parties have been focusing on ideology, and plans instead that the Third Way platform should be concerned with the major problems of Egyptians and their way of life. Another Adl founder, Ahmed Shukry, sees that Egyptians deserve better than to be stuck with two warring factions who have deep ideological differences, the Islamists and the liberals. Egyptians, he says, should be able to afford another conciliatory perspective. The liberals, especially, Dr Shukry said, are being branded “secularists”, a word that has come to carry a bad reputation since it is made by Islamists to imply that secularists are non-believers.
For his part, political science professor Hazem Hassan has criticised the various coalitions, saying they have been formed between originally weak parties or movements, which works to further weaken them. “These are coalitions for the benefit of the public image of the parties, and can achieve negligible success with the average voter,” Dr Hassan says.