Political Participation: An Indication of Democracy?

 Last week the nation witnessed the first presidential elections since the January 25 Revolution that ended the Mubarak regime. Since then, Egyptians were asked to participate in the political transition by going to the ballot boxes in three elections with a fourth one coming in the way in June 16 and 17. Contrary to the expectations that people would be eager to cast their votes and choose their next president, the turnout for the first round of the presidential elections, around 46 percent, was relatively low compared to the parliamentary elections, 41 percent, and the referendum, 54 percent. Political Sociologist Said Sadek explains that expectations were naturally high, given that a political revolution had taken place in the country. “It is usually the case after revolutions that empower people and bring politics back to the average citizen, that political participation reaches unprecedented proportions,” he says. Sadek adds that given the prolonged transitional period for a year and half, with mounting daily problems such as gas shortage and lack of security, people were looking for ward to the elections. So when the elections were finally held with a choice of 13 candidates competing to woo Egyptian voters, expectations were high. “It was the first free presidential elections since Pharaonic times,” he says. “That was unprecedented in Egyptian politics. So the expectations were high, [people were expecting] the turnout would be over 80 or 90 percent.” According to the Presidential Elections Commission (PEC), the turnout was 46.42 per cent of registered voters, or around 23.6 millions of 51 million eligible voters.  Farouk Sultan, head of the commission, admitted there were various voting irregularities, but said as a whole, they do not affect the results of the elections. He added that names of ineligible voters that were still on lists on election days, had been aggregated and sent to all polling stations to be removed from the voting lists. Although compared to the last time presidential elections were held in the country in 2005, the numbers reflect a growing interest in the political process, experts were hoping for much more. The first-ever ‘multi-candidate elections’ under former President Hosni Mubarak saw 7.1 million voting, out of 32 million eligible voters that year. In these, elections, Mubarak secured 87 per cent of the votes, 6.3 million votes. No match to the parliament Back in March 2011 during the referendum on constitutional amendments, the turnout was higher than in any other referendum held in the history of Egypt. With almost 41.2 percent, or 18.5 million voters, the attitudes were quite different given that it was the fist free democratic process that Egyptians participated in. Sadek says that despite security risks and instability at the time people felt empowered and voted. The same can be said for parliamentary elections, which came right after violent protests that lead to injuries and deaths of protestors in the events of Mohamed Mahmoud Street and Tahrir Square. People felt a need to participate as means of restoring clam to the streets and putting the country closer to an end to the political transition. Others said the revolution had convinced them of their right and duty to choose a government. Still, others claimed they would have stayed home had they not believed they would face a military-imposed fine for not voting. “With almost 54 percent turnout, people were mobilized from every governorate, village, city and district [to stand] behind their candidates, “ says Sadek. “Egyptians then wanted a change so they voted [for] the parliament’s new political forces, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis.” A case of apathy? Sadek elaborates on the various possible explanations for the low voters’ turnout in the presidential elections. “The political culture has not changed greatly regarding the character and powers of the president. He is always expected to be a charismatic man, not a woman,” says Sadek. “None of the 13 presidential candidates were able to inspire the masses like [late President] Gamal Abdel Nasser. All candidates had their loyal followers in their own areas here and there, but not nation-wide.” Sadek adds that besides candidates not being able to truly mobilize the masses into supporting and believing in them, another explanation is that voters were disappointed because their candidates of choice were not running. Voters like Mohamed El Baradei, Hazem Abu Ismail and Ahmed Zoweil’s supporters have abstained from voting because they wanted other candidates than the ones who actually ran. Sadek adds that although voters’ turnouts were higher in the countryside than in urban areas, this time it was only 40 percent, compared to 40 percent in urban areas. “In the countryside, villagers had no particular direct family or tribal link [to candidates] so were less enthusiastic compared to parliamentary elections,” he says. “Moreover, it was the harvest season for them.” There were also a large number of people who boycotted the elections, calling it illegitimate or in fear that the Supreme Council of Armed Forces (SCAF) would rig it in favor of Ahmed Shafik, who is currently in the run-off against Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohamed Morsi. Apart from the political worries, some simply avoided the heat and long queues in the ballots while others opted to make a short cut and wait for the inevitable run-offs. Sadek explains as well that the elections timing came during the final exams of schools and universities, which deterred many students. The upcoming run-off does not look any better either. The results have put many in a state of frustration and confusion. Many are thinking of boycotting the elections, claiming they are not legitimate, while others simply won’t give their votes either of the candidates. Sadek explains that many Egyptians are not happy to “choose between Mubarak's last prime minister and the Muslim Brotherhood candidate.” He adds that he expects a turnout as low as 20 percent.