This post is also available in: Arabic
What are the key features of the NDP’s platform for the 2010 parliamentary elections? What is the party’s agenda for the next legislative term?
The NDP aims, in a brief summary of its platform, to pursue the process of comprehensive community change in all its economic, political, social and cultural dimensions. Change has started but is not over yet. In addition to promoting the living standards and the quality of life of the majority of Egyptians, the party seeks to improve the quality of public services, such as education, health, housing, and facilities.
A key characteristic of the NDP’s platform is that it shies away from generalities in favor of binding pledges, such as curbing poverty or attracting more investments into Egypt. Other commitments are related to health care and education. In addition, the platform allocates specific financial resources to ensure that each pledge is honored. Therefore, the platform is ambitious and takes on political, economic and social dimensions. It also sets specific goals and unveils its funding sources.
How do you assess the performance of NDP’s parliamentary bloc in the outgoing 2005-2010 parliament?
The outgoing parliament is chiefly characterized by the significant amount of legislation it has passed. During its 2005-2010 legislative term, the parliament has voted and debated many highly important laws, most notable of which are the constitutional amendments. 34 articles of the Constitution have been amended in what is regarded as the major constitutional amendment since the promulgation of the Constitution in 1971. To ensure the implementation of these amendments, many laws have been enacted. Of these is a new law that asserts the autonomy of the judiciary and abolishes some exceptional phenomena, such as the Court of Values and the Socialist Public Prosecutor. The Law on Political Rights has been equally amended as well as the law on the political empowerment of women. As a result, women will be granted 64 seats in parliament for the first time in 2010. There are other laws related to gender equality and social security. So there is a comprehensive legislative package covering political and economic areas. I think that this parliament has played a key role. We are unlikely to witness such a flurry of legal and political amendments during the same legislative term anytime soon.
NDP devised over the past few years a mechanism governing the selection of its candidates to the parliamentary elections. How do you view this new mechanism (electoral colleges, opinion polls, decision of the General Secretariat)? How does it differ from the old one?
The mechanism, which is in a continuous state of evolution, is intended to ensure that the party chooses the best, the most suitable and the most popular candidate of all in the constituency. To this end, the party relies on three tools. Opinion polls come first, with the expectation that when citizens are polled on the candidate they deem the most fit to represent the constituency in parliament, they may not necessarily choose the NDP’s candidate. The assessment of party leaders, also referred to as the Electoral College, comes during the second phase of the selection process, in which some 250 to 400 party leaders in every constituency assess the candidates. In the third stage, the party employs the new and previously untested method of direct elections that allows all the party members–ranging from 7,000 to 8,000 members, up to 10,000 in some constituencies–to choose the candidate they deem most fit to represent them. These three indicators, coupled with some reports on financial reputation, good conduct and behaviour, help the party choose its candidate. What is new about this mechanism is the direct election by the party members.
Do you expect the NDP’s official and independent candidates to compete over the party’s principles in 2010 as happened during the 2005 and 2000 elections?
During the 2000 and 2005 elections, NDP’s officially named candidates vied with 7 to 15 other non-chosen NDP leaders in every constituency. So the battle raged on two fronts: within NDP between its official and so called independent candidates who distanced themselves from the party’s principles on the one hand, and with the other parties or independents representing different political parties on the other hand.
The NDP has sought through this year’s new approach to prevent or at the very least reduce this form of competition in such a way that does not divide the vote. As the results of the 2000 and 2005 elections demonstrated, this form of competition impedes the party’s success in elections by dispersing votes in such a way as to advantage rival candidates, who thus manage to claim victory.
For this reason, we have opted for internal elections as a means of attaining two goals: First, to help the candidate optimize his chances. After all, the NDP chooses the best and the most popular candidate who are most likely to succeed. We have intended in the second place to reduce the number of independent candidates, and this did happen, with the final lists of candidates highlighting the limited number of NDP leaders running for the elections. In a nutshell, our new method has paid off, hence the low proportion of NDP leaders competing with the party’s official candidates.
NDP is constantly criticized for harnessing the state’s tools to manipulate political competition especially during elections. The opposition even alleges that the party takes advantage of the security services and the state institutions to win parliamentary majority during elections. How do you respond to such claims?
All elections are rife with mutual accusations. The solution lies, in case of disagreement, in having recourse to the judiciary. Egypt’s judiciary is autonomous and independent. The candidates who feel that the electoral results are unjust can seek a court ruling through the administrative judiciary. The Information Minister has issued rules and regulations that grant political parties, big and small, equal media coverage during the upcoming elections. Mass media do not discriminate against other parties in favor of the National Democratic Party.
When asked about the pledges made by some NDP ministers on the use of public funds. I said that the minister was not entitled to use his ministry’s funds for electoral purposes and that the Egyptian TV station could not give advantage to a minister running for the elections in its coverage of his news. Ministers must receive the same treatment as other candidates.
Let’s take the example of security services. Did they clash over the past days with any party? No they didn’t. The only reported clashes involved the security services and the Muslim Brotherhood candidates because the supporters of this movement have violated the law. Strangely, demonstrations were staged in Alexandria not against the government or the National Democratic Party but against the court after four candidates failed to produce the proof of employment requested by the court. Faced with a similar ruling against many of its candidates, NDP has respected the court’s verdict, but the others have chosen to challenge it. After all, the person chooses the position he wants to place himself in, as goes an Arabic proverb. In this sense, whoever chooses to breach the law must bear the repercussions of his decision, including being left with a smashed car. For their part, the security services intervene to maintain order and prevent confrontation during the rallies organized by different candidates or parties.
We are looking forward to competitive and honest elections monitored by the judiciary, the media and the Egyptian civil society. We do not intend in any way to use the state’s clout or the government’s role to support the NDP candidates at the expense of other parties.
Why does NDP object to the international monitoring of the elections?
This is an important question. More important is to keep in mind that ours is not the only party to reject international monitoring. The Wafd and Tagammu’ parties share our position. In 2005, 15 political parties signed a statement rejecting international monitoring. For this reason, it is unfounded to depict the NDP as the one that denounces international monitoring. The Egyptian political culture is tinged with a fear of foreign meddling in the affairs of Egypt. This fear is deeply seated and dates back to the days of El Khidyawi Ismail when Europe used to meddle in Egypt’s financial, economic and political affairs. The matter becomes even more sensitive if monitoring is seen to be imposed by foreign parties, if it is eventually embraced, not as a response to the calls of parties and intellectuals, but on the instructions of a superpower that releases a report every two days showering advice on Egypt.
Let us suppose that Egypt accepts international monitoring. What headlines do you expect to appear on the front pages of newspapers? They will write “Egypt bows to U.S. pressure” and “the Egyptian government yields to U.S. pressure.”
As Egyptians, we may disagree or agree but we all agree on Egypt’s dignity and independence. From a political perspective, reliance on foreign parties for support in the face of local rivals is the kiss of death to anyone in Egypt. The idea of such foreign intervention is totally rejected in the Egyptian political culture.
The opposition movement and parties claimed that the National Democratic Party refused to grant them the guarantees they have requested to ensure the honesty of the elections. What happened and what guarantees were they seeking?
Tagammu’s leader, Rifaat al-Said, delivered a memorandum to the NDP’s Secretary General Safwat al-Sherif with the backing of other opposition parties, including the Wafd and Nasserist parties. As far as I remember, al-Sherif said that he was not a member of the government but a candidate running for the elections on behalf of a political party. Al-Said answered, inquiring about the NDP’s opinion in his capacity as a member of a political party. As part of its serious and respectful handling of this issue, the NDP formed a legal political committee of which I was a member to produce a four or five-page paper. The first paragraph read as follows: “The NDP endorses many points contained in the paper of the political parties.” It is only natural to agree on some points and disagree on others. We disagreed for instance on the formation of a Higher Electoral Commission, which already exists irrespective of whether we agree or disagree with it. In addition, the other political parties wanted to lift the state of emergency during the election time to be later reestablished after the elections. In our opinion, the state of emergency is declared for reasons that have nothing to do with elections but with terrorism. Will terrorism stop during election time? So there are different standpoints on which we may agree or disagree.
But more importantly is that we agreed with the other parties on many points. NDP called in its paper for the implementation of other legal provisions, such as the ones on having a more efficient Higher Electoral Commission. Led by a prominent judge, the commission shall set the different rules governing all elections-related matters from slogans to financial issues. And this did take place. We also talked about the criteria governing the selection of chairs and members of electoral commissions, and asked the government to provide the Higher Electoral Commission with all the financial resources it needs to play an efficient role. We equally called for more polling stations so that citizens could cast their votes next to their workplaces or homes.
Mindful of the civil society’s participation in monitoring elections, we reserved a whole paragraph for the rules that need to govern the electoral process and the required transparent and open measures. We trust three things. First, we trust the Egyptian civil society and its capacity to monitor the elections by deploying thousands of observers toward this end. Second, we trust the Egyptian, Arab and international media. During election time, Egypt turns into a magnet for foreign media. In addition, elections take place in broad daylight and under the television spotlight. Third, we trust the role of the judiciary in all stages of the election, in the first stage when candidacies are registered and more importantly in handling appeals, when the Higher Electoral Commission respects the court’s decision to accept or reject appeals. In addition, the higher electoral committees are judicial bodies that oversee the sub-committees and are involved in sorting out votes and announcing the results.
What are the most important political reform projects that the NDP will seek to achieve during the next legislative term? Do you think that the composition of the next parliament will impact in any way the presidential elections scheduled for 2011?
Political reform projects are two-pronged. The first aspect is related to decentralization i.e. the gradual devolution of broader executive powers from the capital to provinces. But more dangerous is the devolution to centers and departments that will end up having their own budget and spending capacities. In addition, popular councils must have wider oversight powers over the executive power. All political parties rally behind decentralization. The party’s five-year program heralds an important transformation in the area of decentralization whether at the executive level, the transfer of power or popular oversight. Therefore, we are talking in this respect about the people’s participation at the local level, about democratic decision making at the local level and about a greater role for local bodies in oversight and implementation.
The second area is related to fighting corruption. And in this field too, the NDP’s platform rests on a review of the legislation on fighting corruption and exercising oversight as well as on the protection of the state’s territory being the major source of corruption in most cases. In this area, a new set of laws is needed to close all loopholes that enable political and administrative corruption.
Will the legislative elections impact the presidential elections? Prior to 2005, the parliament used to name the President of the Republic. But now it is the political parties that determine the identity of the president. Any political party who has one MP in parliament is entitled to name a candidate for the presidential elections. During the 2005 elections, 10 parties met this condition. I do not think that the number will be any less next time. The only correlation between the presidential and parliamentary elections is the case of the independent candidates. The Constitution entitles the independent candidate who does not belong to any party to run for the elections provided that he musters the support of 65 members of the People’s Assembly, 25 members of the Shura Council and a number of members in the popular councils in 10 provinces. So the only link is that of the independent candidate. In my opinion, independent candidates have slim chances of success amid political balance in Egypt and in the presence of one majority party. But the link remains political in general. The results of the parliamentary elections create a political climate that paves the way for the presidential elections. It is no exaggeration to say that many changes can take place between December 2010 and August/September 2011. In other words, we cannot talk about a direct link between the two elections.
You and others in the NDP were asked about the identity of the party’s candidate for the presidential elections. The result is a series of disparate if not contradictory answers. So can you explain to us your party’s stance on this issue with which the Egyptian public is so preoccupied?
First of all, I do not think that this issue, which gets headlines in the American and Western media and in some local media outlets, is in any way preoccupying the Egyptian people. The party is not bound by any political or legal commitment to declare the name of its candidate a year ahead of the elections. It is not logical for me to put aside the parliamentary elections due in two weeks’ time to discuss our candidate for the presidential elections. We answered this question two or three months ago. It is politically futile and frivolous to discuss the presidential elections with the parliamentary elections drawing near.
The parties interested in running for the presidential elections have the right to ponder the issue. But our party senses no need to raise this issue at this point in time. We have our own mechanisms and bylaws that govern the selection of our candidate. In addition, the party holds a general congress during which around 5,000 party leaders elect their candidate for the presidential elections. We do not see believe there is any need to trigger a controversy. Let us just wait and see. Then act accordingly.
