From the early afternoon of the second day, the national and private media engaged in a concerted effort to push people to go to vote (a system of compulsory voting exists in Egypt). State televisions announced that the presidential election committee (PEC) would report all those who did not vote to the public prosecutor and those abstainers could face hefty fines. Eventually, the PEC decided to extend voting for another day.
There are three questions to be asked. Firstly, who did not go out to vote and why? Secondly, how will this turnout issue impact the next presidency domestically. And finally, how will the international community react, particularly given the presence of international observers?
There are probably three sets of voters who have abstained in this election. The first two are active, with the final probably more passive. The first group are supporters of the former president, Mohammed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood and their affiliates. The second group are those who might reject the reinstatement of Mr Morsi, but also actively oppose the current political environment.
Yet, there is also a passive group. Given the overwhelming endorsement from so many institutions and the political and economic elite of Abdel Fattah El Sisi’s presidential run, many may have rightfully assumed his victory was a foregone conclusion.
As such, many, even if not opposed to Mr El Sisi, could very well have decided there was little point in voting, particularly on one of the hotter days in May. Of course, there is no way to confirm which group was the largest portion in the overall non-voting population.
One might hope this kind of turnout issue would give the incoming Egyptian president cause for pause. If nothing else, he would want to consider that Egypt’s democratic culture is not as healthy as it might be. In many countries, this would cause the winning figure to consider exactly what his mandate might be – but it is unclear if the soon to be president will draw that conclusion.
Finally, what does this turn of events mean for the international community – not simply the turnout, but the surprising move to extend voting for a day? The fear many observers in Egypt had was that the extension could be interpreted in one of two differing ways.
The first would be that the authorities were keen to avoid vote fraud, and as such wanted to increase turnout. The second possibility that was pointed to, however, was that the extra time would be used to distort the results. There is no conclusive proof for either assertion – but that will not stop widespread speculation, due to the dubious decision to extend voting.
Democracy International, one of the larger observer missions ignored the extension of the voting period, and pulled their short-term observers back as planned. Their public statement was highly critical of the decision to extend for a day, with their president also declaring “Egypt’s repressive political environment made a genuinely democratic presidential election impossible”. Others said this extension damaged the credibility of the process, calling into question the neutrality of the PEC.
The European Union’s monitoring mission, on the other hand, decided to stay in the field for an extra day, but on Thursday issued a press statement that contained some critical language about not only the process leading up to the election, but also the actual election itself.
The international community will recognise the result – and it seems clear Sisi has won the election. But the flaws in the process will leave many disappointed – Egypt’s democratic culture has taken a hard knock, and that will have repercussions.
_________________________________________________________________
Dr HA Hellyer is an associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute in London and the Brookings Institution in Washington DC. http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/comment/how-the-egyptian-election-will-be-judged-at-large#ixzz338wjyMSA