| |
| Join Our Newsletter |
 Please Select sub-criteria |  |
|
|
|
|
| |
| Egyptian Elections: Painful LessonsEgyptian Elections: Painful Lessons |
03 |
|
|
| |
| |
| |
On December 1st,the US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack stated that Washington had not received 'any indication that the Egyptian government isn't interested in having peaceful, free and fair elections'.This statement brought much criticism from human rights groups and independent election monitors. New York-based Human Rights Watch stated in a letter to the US State Department that its comments on Egypt's parliamentary elections were 'utterly disconnected from the reality of what is happening in Egypt today'. Human Rights Watch stated in its December 2nd letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that McCormack's remarks badly served 'those many Egyptians who have voted or attempted to vote in the face of this pattern of violence,intimidation and fraud.' The group added that, 'It badly undermines the administration's credibility, including your own, when it speaks of its commitment to democratic freedoms in Egypt and the region'. In response to the growing criticism, the US corrected itself, saying there were 'serious concerns about the path of political reform in Egypt' but at the same time praised the progress made for democratic reform so far. The subdued response of the US administration to the violence and intimidation in the parliamentary elections has cast fresh doubts on its commitment to genuine political change and reform in Egypt, which is enhanced by its refusal to recognise the MB.
Conclusion
Talk of political reform in the Middle East has steadily increased over the last 15 years with academics and intellectuals emphasising the need for free and fair elections, accountability, transparency and enhancement of political freedoms. Some have cited new processes in the region as signs of progress: elections in Jordan 1993 and 1997, the reunification of Yemen, the increase in opposition representation from 12% to 20% in the Tunisian parliament, and the initiation of a political process in Algeria in 1995 after the civil war. The bigger picture is however that autocratic regimes continue to monopolise political power and apply the oppressive instruments of the state to maintain law and order to this day. All such elections have occurred in this context and have therefore been cosmetic and ineffectual. The persistence of autocracy has occurred whilst the role and influence of the US has increased in the region. The US as a global power is seen as having a moral responsibility to assist in the emancipation of oppressed people, but this responsibility has not been fulfilled. The age-old dilemma of encouraging substantial political reform and allowing diverse political currents to contest free and fair elections has haunted the US mindset in relation to the Middle East. The fear of an Islamic government coming into power and jeopardising US interests has acted as a major stumbling block to US encouragement of political reform. Right-wing thinkers close to the US administration have pointed to the success of the MB in the Egyptian parliamentary elections and the dangers of comprehensive political reform in the region. Given this US pre-occupation with strategic interests, it is difficult to foresee a commitment to substantive and comprehensive change in the Middle East in the near future, regardless of Condoleeza Rice's remarks earlier in 2005. The relationship between autocratic political elites unwilling to concede power and the US focused on securing vital interests will continue to prevent the emergence of any genuinely accountable government. The prospect before us under the current order therefore is autocracy continuing to occupy the political space in the Middle East.
Reform has in the past focused upon institutionalising the mechanisms of voting and elections into Middle Eastern political culture. There is no doubt regarding the importance of such mechanisms, but the debate should now shift, beyond processes, to focus on the end product, i.e. what type of government do people in the region actually desire.A government upholding tyranny and autocracy is clearly rejected by all - leaving the debate polarised between the choice of a secular or Islamic government. This is a debate which needs to be entered into with an objective mindset in order to determine the model of governance suited for the Middle East. It is important to take the aspirations of the people into consideration - which have been neglected for decades - in order to allow the emergence of a government that is representative of the society. This is the only way to ensure the emergence of social, economic and political stability in the region.
| |
| |
| |
| |
« First < 1 2 3
Page 3 of 3 pages
| |
|
|
