Egypt’s Unfree Elections
Harold's List
The New Yourk Sun
By Eli Lake
CAIRO — Yesterday, the final day of the Egyptian parliamentary elections, clashes between citizens and riot police resulted in two deaths. In the district of Zagazig, police cars patrolled some poorer villages telling people that the polls were closed at 1 p.m., six hours before they actually were. Government forces used tear gas to displace what they called mobs, but what most observers would call voters.
Now all of this has happened in a threestage election that, until Tuesday, was widely praised by the American State Department as “an important step to democratic reform.” When asked about the violence and intimidation so severe in the last round of voting that some members of the Muslim Brothers had to use ladders in order to enter the second story of a polling station whose entrance on the ground was blocked by the police, Foggy Bottom gave the election thieves a pass.
On December 1, a State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, said he had seen the reports, and noted the importance of having a political environment whereby voters did not feel threatened.But in a gift for the regime here, he said, “I am sure that the Egyptian government is committed to providing that environment.”After judges and independent election monitors contradicted this assessment, the State Department revised its earlier opinion. On December 7, the deputy spokesman, Adam Ereli, said, “Clearly these actions send the wrong signal about Egypt's commitment to democracy and freedom.”
That’s putting it mildly. On Monday the judge in the trial of President Mubarak’s challenger in the September elections, Ayman Nur, ordered Mr. Nur to go to jail despite having posted bail. The government is charging Mr. Nur with forging the signatures he presented in order to register his party earlier this year, an odd prosecution for a regime whose ruling party in many districts bused in supporters at the last minute to boost the tallies for the incumbent.
In my reporting, almost every political figure challenging the state party credits Secretary of State Rice’s address to the American University in Cairo on June 20 with spurring Mr. Mubarak to allow political competition. And this praise is no small matter. Most of the opposition groups here, from the secular coalition known as Kafaya, or “enough” in Arabic, to the Muslim Brothers, are very critical of American foreign policy. And yet, as the deputy leader of the Muslim Brothers, Mohammed Habib, told me last week when I asked for his impressions of the Bush administration,“When Secretary Rice delivered her speech saying it was for too long they have been helping dictators, well, that was a good thing.This recognition was good for us.”
She said far more than that. In the kind of powerful words that evoke Secretary of State Shultz, Ms. Rice told the audience at the American university, “The Egyptian Government must fulfill the promise it has made to its people — and to the entire world — by giving its citizens the freedom to choose.” She called for the parliamentary elections in particular to “meet objective standards that define every free election.” That included the freedoms of assembly and the press, and voting free from intimidation and violence. “Throughout the Middle East, the fear of free choices can no longer justify the denial of liberty,” she said.
Five months later, the Egyptian people took Ms. Rice at her word. In November the streets of Cairo and Alexandria were alive with a real political campaign. The long banned Muslim Brotherhood passed out paper sun visors with photos of candidates; socialists held rallies in Cairo’s liberation square; newspapers ran opinion pieces from candidates offering their policies and positions. And Egyptians voters braved tear gas and police batons in order to casts ballots.
But the hopes of many Egyptians crashed into the reality of their police state. By December 1, the association of judges overseeing the voting threatened to pull their people out of the polling stations because in many instances police were dispatched to block citizens from going to the polls. The police shot rubber bullets at demonstrators, phony voting lists were submitted by the ruling party, and all manner of chicanery was employed in what looked like a coordinated effort to steal the election.
One can suppose that this sort of thing should be expected from Mr. Mubarak. But what is extraordinary is that on December 1, Washington was essentially silent. America’s strongest voice, the one that proudly declares the universality of our freedoms and offers unconditional support for those who seek them, was mute.
The State Department last week was doing damage control. The secretary was preparing for a trip to Europe where she had to explain America’s secret war on international terrorism to a public that has appeared to lose any will to fight it. Meanwhile in Cairo, an authoritarian afraid of free choices chose to deny his people liberty after briefly allowing their freedom to flourish.
The New Yourk Sun
By Eli Lake
CAIRO — Yesterday, the final day of the Egyptian parliamentary elections, clashes between citizens and riot police resulted in two deaths. In the district of Zagazig, police cars patrolled some poorer villages telling people that the polls were closed at 1 p.m., six hours before they actually were. Government forces used tear gas to displace what they called mobs, but what most observers would call voters.
Now all of this has happened in a threestage election that, until Tuesday, was widely praised by the American State Department as “an important step to democratic reform.” When asked about the violence and intimidation so severe in the last round of voting that some members of the Muslim Brothers had to use ladders in order to enter the second story of a polling station whose entrance on the ground was blocked by the police, Foggy Bottom gave the election thieves a pass.
On December 1, a State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, said he had seen the reports, and noted the importance of having a political environment whereby voters did not feel threatened.But in a gift for the regime here, he said, “I am sure that the Egyptian government is committed to providing that environment.”After judges and independent election monitors contradicted this assessment, the State Department revised its earlier opinion. On December 7, the deputy spokesman, Adam Ereli, said, “Clearly these actions send the wrong signal about Egypt's commitment to democracy and freedom.”
That’s putting it mildly. On Monday the judge in the trial of President Mubarak’s challenger in the September elections, Ayman Nur, ordered Mr. Nur to go to jail despite having posted bail. The government is charging Mr. Nur with forging the signatures he presented in order to register his party earlier this year, an odd prosecution for a regime whose ruling party in many districts bused in supporters at the last minute to boost the tallies for the incumbent.
In my reporting, almost every political figure challenging the state party credits Secretary of State Rice’s address to the American University in Cairo on June 20 with spurring Mr. Mubarak to allow political competition. And this praise is no small matter. Most of the opposition groups here, from the secular coalition known as Kafaya, or “enough” in Arabic, to the Muslim Brothers, are very critical of American foreign policy. And yet, as the deputy leader of the Muslim Brothers, Mohammed Habib, told me last week when I asked for his impressions of the Bush administration,“When Secretary Rice delivered her speech saying it was for too long they have been helping dictators, well, that was a good thing.This recognition was good for us.”
She said far more than that. In the kind of powerful words that evoke Secretary of State Shultz, Ms. Rice told the audience at the American university, “The Egyptian Government must fulfill the promise it has made to its people — and to the entire world — by giving its citizens the freedom to choose.” She called for the parliamentary elections in particular to “meet objective standards that define every free election.” That included the freedoms of assembly and the press, and voting free from intimidation and violence. “Throughout the Middle East, the fear of free choices can no longer justify the denial of liberty,” she said.
Five months later, the Egyptian people took Ms. Rice at her word. In November the streets of Cairo and Alexandria were alive with a real political campaign. The long banned Muslim Brotherhood passed out paper sun visors with photos of candidates; socialists held rallies in Cairo’s liberation square; newspapers ran opinion pieces from candidates offering their policies and positions. And Egyptians voters braved tear gas and police batons in order to casts ballots.
But the hopes of many Egyptians crashed into the reality of their police state. By December 1, the association of judges overseeing the voting threatened to pull their people out of the polling stations because in many instances police were dispatched to block citizens from going to the polls. The police shot rubber bullets at demonstrators, phony voting lists were submitted by the ruling party, and all manner of chicanery was employed in what looked like a coordinated effort to steal the election.
One can suppose that this sort of thing should be expected from Mr. Mubarak. But what is extraordinary is that on December 1, Washington was essentially silent. America’s strongest voice, the one that proudly declares the universality of our freedoms and offers unconditional support for those who seek them, was mute.
The State Department last week was doing damage control. The secretary was preparing for a trip to Europe where she had to explain America’s secret war on international terrorism to a public that has appeared to lose any will to fight it. Meanwhile in Cairo, an authoritarian afraid of free choices chose to deny his people liberty after briefly allowing their freedom to flourish.
posted by Marko at 12/08/2005 11:21:00 AM
<< Home