The first round of Egypt’s presidential elections is over. It was, by all standards, a fair election that gained the world’s respect, following the series of conflicts, failures, and setbacks Egypt
WATANI International
3 June 2012
The first round of Egypt’s presidential elections is over. It was, by all standards, a fair election that gained the world’s respect, following the series of conflicts, failures, and setbacks Egypt went through since the 25 January Revolution, and which left a bitter after-taste of frustration, wariness and hijacked revolution.
We are now in the phase of preparing for the run-offs on 16 and 17 June. The first round saw a 46.42 per cent turnout. Five candidates out of 13 garnered 97.76 per cent of the vote. The result was surprising in that both candidates that had been reported by the polls to have had the highest chances, Abdel-Moniem Abul-Fotouh and Amr Moussa, came in fourth and fifth; while Hamdein Sabahi gained an unexpected third place.
Mohamed Mursi and Ahmed Shafik will face off in the second round of the elections. The matter is no mere competition for the presidency; it places us before the option of the Islamist project, represented by Mursi; and the civil State project represented by Shafik. It must be pointed out, however, that they had not been the only contenders representing these two projects. Abul-Fotouh called for an Islamic State, while Moussa and Sabahi stood for a civil State. Voters compared between the contenders basing on a variety of factors, including the civil or Islamist projects. At the end, some voted for Islamist; others voted civil; and some third voted for neither this or that, but for what they saw as revolutionary genuineness. The run-offs, however, will be a direct decision of whether we choose a civil or an Islamist State in Egypt; every Egyptian needs to make up his or her mind and head to the polls.
Political manoeuvring is already in full swing. Once the election results were out on 25 May the two winning contenders embarked on efforts to win over the candidates who did not make it to the final race, hoping to win over their supporters. In the process, several of the moves taken warrant comments.
• The Muslim Brotherhood (MB) group and its political arm, the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) re-produced the prevalent political references so as to serve the interests of the upcoming period. They presented their candidate Mursi as the winning choice who carried the Islamist “renaissance project” and the revolutionary legacy of 25 January 2011 as well. They labelled Sabahi, who ranked third in the first round elections and was thus out of the run-offs, as “a genuine revolutionary”, and Shafik as “fuloul” —literally, remnant—of the previous regime. The political reference points were thus exploited to endorse some and exclude others, without a single reference to the Islamist or civil State options.
• The FJP called for a meeting between all the contenders of the presidential elections, under the pretext of the national consensus required for the critical upcoming phase and the common effort it demands. The Egyptian street’s response to this call was divided; some applauded it while other rejected it. The rejection stemmed from the growing distrust between the supporters of the civil State as opposed to the Islamist, a distrust that was fed and nurtured by the performance of the Islamist camp in the wake of the 25 January 2011 Revolution, especially following their hegemony over the legislative authority. The civil camp could not help wondering about the call for national consensus and joining forces: why now? And what hidden intentions can there be behind it?
• An open question was who the voters would vote for in the run-offs. Conventional wisdom would say that Abul-Fotouh’s supporters would in all probability vote for Mursi, and those who had voted for Moussa would now vote for Shafik. In the middle stands the mass that voted for Sabahi; who will be able to attract their votes in the run-offs? The civil or the Islamist projects?
• A final question that carries huge significance remains: Given the 46 per cent turnout in the first round, will the frantic run for the presidency in the run-offs persuade the remaining 54 per cent of the voter base to cast their ballots? They may make or break the vote.