September 7, 2005
TELLING PHAROAH:
Egyptians vote in limited brush with democracy: A Mubarak win is undisputed, but the election created a rare space for dissent. (Dan Murphy, 9/08/05, The Christian Science Monitor)
[I]t remains to be seen if the regime will be changed by this brush with presidential politics. Though the outcome was guaranteed, Mubarak and his team ran a Western-style campaign for the first time, even granting an interview to an independent newspaper."The concerns of the masses and the ordinary man in the street should be the main concern of any person in a position of leadership,'' President Mubarak told Al-Mesri Al-Yom newspaper, while reiterating a campaign promise to increase the minimum wage by 100 percent and to create 4.5 million new jobs. "I know exactly what the concerns of the people are, their problems, suffering, and expectations."
"On the one hand, the election itself is a bit of a joke,'' says an activist from the Kifaya, or Enough, movement, which organized a rowdy demonstration urging voters to boycott the election and criticizing Mubarak. "But it's also at least forcing him to stand up and be responsible for the government's policies. It shows he's not above criticism, and that could eventually change the system in ways they don't expect." [...]
Mubarak's record is shaky in many respects. Since he took power, Egypt's national debt has more than tripled; the Egyptian pound has lost 88 percent of its value against the dollar; and unemployment is now estimated at 25 percent.
Government corruption is also widespread. In August, the Al-Osboa newspaper published documents alleging to show that Ibrahim Nafie, who until July ran the government press group Al-Ahram and is also a close confidant of Mubarak, had stolen more than $100 million during his tenure.
But there is also real support for the president. Many Egyptians remember the ruinous wars with Israel in 1967 and 1973, and are grateful that Mubarak has kept the country largely out of foreign entanglements. It's a theme he's played up in his campaign, obliquely pointing at the chaos in neighbors like Iraq as a potential outcome if he doesn't keep a steady hand on the helm. "Mubarak has talked about peace, he's given us bread, and he's promised to create jobs,'' says Adbel Nabi, a 63-year-old electrician who shares a room with his wife and six of his children. "We'll see if he meets his promises, but at least we know him. These other candidates, we don't know them at all."
Promises made have consequences. Posted by Orrin Judd at September 7, 2005 10:28 PM
25% unemployment -- big deal. Who needs a job when Mubarak is giving you bread?
And that corruption isn't much worse than what goes on in Ontario and Quebec here in Canada. It hasn't toppled our government.
What's the difference between Mubarak running things for life and the Liberals in Canada or Japan doing the same thing? I'm beginning to think that democracy is more a function of free enterprise than voting.
Posted by: Randall Voth at September 7, 2005 11:50 PMExcellent questions (assuming that Mubarak is actually forking over the pitot).
But to really find out, how 'bout some researh: go to Ottawa for a coupla days and protest 'round the clock with signs saying "Martin is a corrupt horse's backside."
Then go to Cairo and do the same thing, except with signs saying "Mubarak's a corrupt horse's backside." (You might want to register with the Canadian Embassy first, though.)
If you're lucky, they'll toss you right out of the country. Come to think of it, they'll probably toss you out of Egypt you used the same signs you used in Ottawa....
And if you spend any amount of time in Cairo, you may discover that there's a fair amount (about corruption) that the Liberals could learn over there. Call it a cross-cultural experience.
Posted by: Barry Meislin at September 8, 2005 2:25 AMOn the other hand, I find the idea of "brush" with democracy quite a lovely and expressive metaphore.
Not as creatively compelling, of course, as the idea of "limited brush" with democracy.
Though if it probably would have been closer to the truth had the CSM had gone with, "Democracy advocates in Egypt get sideswiped" or even "trampled once again". Truth (what's that?) to tell, they would have been more accurate, if less lyrical, had they written, "Democracy advocates hit dead on and crushed by a freight train called Mubarak".
But then, that might be expecting a bit.
Posted by: Barry Meislin at September 8, 2005 3:26 AMDon't confuse freedom with democracy. As I have said before, freedom is living alone out in the Siberian wilderness.
Didn't Bill Clinton have two parents thrown in jail for accusing him of killing their soldier son? In Canada, if you don't vote the party line, they refuse to allow you to run in the next election. A man was prosecuted here in Canada for taking out an ad that had two Bible verses in it because it was considered offensive to gays. Try walking around in Canada with a sign that reads: "Gays will burn in hell" and see what happens.
What I am talking about is the difference to the average shnook who decides his vote based on Mubarak giving him bread. It is no different here in Canada and the result is the same -- government for life.
That led to my musing that democracy was more a function of free enterprise than voting.
Posted by: Randall Voth at September 8, 2005 4:10 AMWell, on the bright side, this was a well orchestrated sham election, as sham elections go.
I hope that this phony election will continue Egypt's progress toward genuine artificial democracy.
"These other candidates, we don't know them at all."
I'm sure that after the final count, the Egyptian officials will release the names of the opposition candidates, so Adbel needs to just show a little patience.
As do expectations raised.
Posted by: Mikey at September 8, 2005 8:20 AM