From Plebiscite to Contest? Egypt’s Presidential Election A Human Rights Watch Briefing Paper Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1 Political Rights and Demands for Reform................................................................................ 2 Free and Fair? ................................................................................................................................ 4 From Plebiscite to Election: Article 76 Amended............................................................... 4 Government Restrictions and Harassment........................................................................... 5 Campaign Issues........................................................................................................................ 6 Judicial Supervision of Elections............................................................................................ 8 Election Monitoring ...............................................................................................................10 Appendix ...................................................................................................................................... 11 Political Parties and Candidates............................................................................................11 Introduction On September 7, Egypt will hold its first-ever presidential election, as distinct from the single-candidate plebiscites that have so far characterized the “re-elections” of President Husni Mubarak. This election, however, is seriously flawed by requirements that effectively negate the possibility of any opposition leader from seriously challenging President Mubarak’s hold on power. Mubarak, a former air force general whom President Anwar al-Sadat appointed as his vice-president, took over as president following al-Sadat’s assassination in October 1981. His control of the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP), which has an effective monopoly on formal political life in the country, ensured that he stood unchallenged in 1987, 1993, and 1999 plebiscites. This year Mubarak will face nine other candidates. Only al-Ghad (Tomorrow) Party’s Ayman Nur and al-Wafd (Delegation) Party’s Nu`man Gum`a are candidates with constituencies and party networks of any significance. (Nur, who has been most outspoken in his criticism of Mubarak, was jailed earlier this year and still faces trial on charges that appear to be politically-motivated.) Other small but established opposition parties boycotted the election, calling it a sham (see appendix). Several well-known activists who had put themselves forward initially – democracy activist and sociologist Saadeddin Ibrahim, feminist and physician Nawwal al-Saadawi, and former member of parliament Muhammad Farid Hassanein – also withdrew. A major flaw in the revised constitutional amendment governing the presidential election is that it precludes the possibility of an independent candidate by requiring in effect the endorsement of hundreds of members of the ruling party. It is likely that the government insisted on this provision to ensure that the largest political opposition group, the Muslim Brotherhood, which remains banned and unable to participate legally in national politics, would not be able to put forward a candidate who might represent its agenda. (On August 21, in what many observers saw as a move that on balance favored Mubarak, Brotherhood Supreme Leader Muhammad `Akif urged members to vote rather than boycott the election but refrained from endorsing any candidate.) The NDP’s dominance in all branches of government, its vast patronage network, state control of electronic and major print media, more than five decades of stultifying restrictions on independent parties and political activity, and an absurdly short campaign window of three weeks make it extremely unlikely that the election on September 7 will reflect the free choice of the electorate. If the September 7 election happens without the 1 serious fraud and intimidation that has characterized some other recent votes, this will be an important advance, but the main features of entrenched authoritarian rule remain very much in place and clearly put a free and fair election at this moment beyond reach. In the view of many Egyptians, the real test of electoral reform will come with the People’s Assembly general elections, due to be called for November. The biggest challenge facing the president and his party is not winning but generating a sufficiently large turnout to be able to claim a measure of popular legitimacy. The most serious recent incidents of police violence against opponents occurred when protestors urged the public to boycott the polls, as during the constitutional amendment referendum on May 25 and again in demonstrations on July 30 following President Mubarak’s formal declaration that he would stand for a fifth term. Political Rights and Demands for Reform The significance of this election lies not in the possibility of unseating President Mubarak but in the fact that for the first time many Egyptians are boldly challenging his rule. It remains to be seen whether the motions of a contested election will deflect or amplify that challenge, which has raised demands for key political rights such as freedom of assembly and freedom of association. The key demand is to end the emergency law that has been in effect continuously since October 1981 and allows the authorities to ban demonstrations and public assemblies, detain individuals without charge for extended periods, and prosecute people before Emergency State Security Courts that do not meet international fair trial standards. The government has not suspended the emergency laws during the campaign, although it has generally not interfered with opposition rallies linked directly to the campaign. Calls for reform coming from Western allies, especially the United States, contributed to Mubarak’s about-face on the issue of contested elections. Since the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, the Bush administration has emphasized the need for democratic reforms in the Arab world as one element in combating terrorism, and Washington has increasingly justified the invasion and occupation of Iraq in terms of advancing democratic rights in the region. President Bush prodded Egypt in his January 2005 State of the Union Address, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice abruptly cancelled a planned February visit to protest the jailing of Ayman Nur. When Rice did visit Cairo in June, she publicly urged the government to allow opposition groups freedom of assembly and access to the media, and repeated President Bush’s call for international election monitors. 2 Washington contributed to Egypt’s present ferment in other, unintended ways. Large street demonstrations in 2003 protesting the Iraq invasion and Washington’s unstinting support for Israel’s suppression of the Palestinian intifada were the catalyst for initial outspoken attacks on President Mubarak’s authoritarian rule. (Another key demand of demonstrators has been to end the widespread practice of torture by ordinary police and especially by the Ministry of Interior’s State Security Investigations bureau. Interestingly, on issues of torture and long-term detention without charge, where its own conduct stands as an affront to fundamental human rights, Washington has been deafeningly silent.) The popular challenge that forced President Mubarak’s hand took organizational form in July 2004 when a coalition of individuals and groups, the Egyptian Movement for Change (al-haraka al-misriyya min ajl al-taghyir), initiated a petition campaign dismissing the latest cabinet shake-up as cosmetic, rejecting the apparent grooming of Mubarak’s son Gamal for presidential succession, and calling for direct, contested presidential elections. The first public protest calling on Mubarak to step down occurred on December 12, 2004, when the Movement for Change brought between 500 and 1,000 persons to the steps of the High Court in Cairo. The largely silent protestors taped their mouths with large yellow stickers bearing the single word kifaya (enough), a slogan that quickly became the operative name of the protest movement. By the spring of 2005 Kifaya protests had become weekly events, with chants of “No to Mubarak, his party, and his son,” and “Mubarak, you failed us, what did you do with our money?” Gamal Mubarak, who had been put in charge of “reforming” the NDP, insisted in July 2004 that ending the emergency law was “not among the priorities” of the NDP. It was “not wise to broach issues affecting domestic stability,” he said. Today, virtually all candidates, even President Mubarak, call for ending the emergency law, though the president says that the government will offer new counter-terrorism legislation – what he termed “a firm and a decisive law that eliminates terrorism and uproots its threats.” Among Mubarak’s challengers, Ayman Nur says that in addition to getting rid of the emergency laws he would release the thousands of persons detained without charge – around 15,000 by most estimates – and do away with “unnecessary bodies like the state security prosecutor.” Al-Wafd’s Nu`man Gum`a has also called for the end of emergency law and release of detainees. Nur and a number of candidates favor drafting a new constitution; al-Wafd Party program is less explicit but calls for a “parliamentary republic” where the elected