This piece was reprinted by OpEd News with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
Authoritarian dominance is unchallenged. Elections are more theater than real. Egypt's multi-round process complicates them further. Lack of real choice corrupts them.
In 2011, parliamentary elections were held. Ahead of June's presidential runoff, Egypt's military junta reacted.
A two-step process was used. The military-controlled Supreme Constitutional Court (SCC) annulled results. It claimed electoral law unconstitutional. It said one-third of seats were invalid because political party candidates won seats reserved for independents.
The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) then dissolved parliament and the constituent assembly tasked with drafting a new constitution. At issue is retaining junta control and preventing democratic change.
SCC judges also approved Ahmed Sahfiq's presidential candidacy. He was Mubarak's last prime minister. He faced Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohamed Morsi in weekend polling.
Egypt's anti-democratic tradition is longstanding. Parliamentary elections are corrupted by fraud. Whoever wins doesn't matter.
SCAF retains supreme power to propose and veto legislation, convene and adjourn parliament, appoint and replace the prime minister and cabinet members, and have final say on how Egypt's governed.
Elected officials serve them. Traditional authoritarian rule runs the country. Elections don't matter. They provide a veneer of democratic change, not the real thing.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
