by Kyli Powe
In democratic elections, voters have the right to voice their disapproval of the government freely and to bring different procedures as well as candidates to the forefront. When these rights are violated, voters are being robbed of their voice for democracy. Elections should be fair, honest and free of corruption. Voters should not be fearful of expressing their opinions of their government, especially when corruption and injustice are present. However, this is not the case in Cairo, Egypt. On Tuesday, April 16th, 2019, Egyptian President Abdel Fatah al-Sissi won approval from lawmakers to stay in office until 2030. The president’s authoritarian grasp over Egypt has resulted in the election benefiting in his favor. The fact that Egypt is under authoritarian rule conveys a clear indication that without a doubt, that the president won the election through fraud. Under authoritarian rule, individual freedom does not exist, and citizens are subjects to oppression. Power is not resting in the hands of the people but is instead being grasped by the hands of a leader or a small elite.
The vote was 531 to 22, with one non-voting person. The legislature is dominated by Sissi’s loyalists, and his regime has quieted disapproval to constitutional amendments, arresting rebels and looking to remove an online protest campaign by ending its website. The legislature has also taken procedures to limit online content that permitted the people of Egypt contact to the obstruction campaign. This is an example of a term that is described by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt in How Democracies Die, Ch.4 called “Capturing the referee”. This means that the government chooses when it wants to enforce the law. It penalizes the ones that disapprove of them but will protect the ones that are on their side. The capturing of the referee is being demonstrated by switching out unbiased administrators with loyalists. These so-called lawmakers that approved for President Sissi to remain in office, were without a doubt loyalist of his. Therefore, he was guaranteed to win the election. There was no way he was going to lose because he had the outcome of the election already in his advantage. The citizens were fearful to vote or rebel against him because they knew that they would suffer harsh consequences. Sissi’s regime has already imprisoned tens of thousands of criticizers and destroyed independent media and ended hundreds of websites that were dangerous of his term.
President Sissi basically won the election through acts of corruption and by instilling fear towards the voters. The president would be given new authorities to appoint judges and the municipal prosecutor, resulting in control of the judicial system. The anticipated alterations also include revising the constitution to declare that the role of the military which remains the power behind his presidency, is to defend “the constitution and democracy”. If his presidency is supposedly based on the constitution and democracy, then why is he using intimidation tactics to keep voters from voting against him? Why is he shutting down independent media and websites just because they are expressing their opinions about his views? If his presidency is truly based on the constitution and democracy, then why is he imprisoning thousands of citizens just because they disapprove of him? Sissi’s presidency is based less on democracy and more on what Steven Levitsky and Lucan A. Way describe as in Elections Without Democracy: The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism, a “pseudo-democracy”. A pseudo-democracy is a system of government that considers itself to be democratic but is not.
Ayman Nour, an important opposition politician who lives in exile in Turkey stated, “We are concerned that these constitutional amendments will be the final step toward transforming Egypt into a fully autocratic state, with extreme human rights violations and failures in all aspects of life for many years to come.” This statement represents an example of a pseudo democracy because the government tries to make it seem like these revisions of the constitution are for the benefits of the citizens. People are realizing that these revisions are only for the benefit of President Sissi. His goal is to lead Egypt on a path to autocracy where all the power lies in his hands. He doesn’t want anybody to have a voice. All he wants his for the people to follow his orders without them having any input. This is also an example of a term that Levitsky and Ziblatt mention in How Democracies Die, Ch.4 called “Rewriting rules altogether.” This means that you are rewriting the rules, so the government works in your favor. Sissi wants revisions done to their constitution so it can benefit him and the people. He knows that the more revisions that are made will result in him gaining more and power, because he has the government wrapped around his finger.
Gaining power through corruption undermines what democracy stands for. Candidates should never make voters feel scared or intimidated to voice their political views. Authoritarianism and corruption do not represent democracy but threatens it. Elections should be used as a medium for ideas of reform and unity, not oppression, corruption, and injustice.
Rewriting the rules so the government works in the favor of a certain person or group is a big problem. The government should be in favor of everyone, the society as a whole. The power should rest in the hands of the people but corrupt regimes are making it more difficult to keep the power where it needs to be. The shutting down of media outlets in opposition to him and the incarceration of individuals that do not support him are clear signs that things are turning away from democracy.
You are absolutely right.
Hi Kyli,
Interesting piece on corruption and elections. In hybrid regimes like Egypt, as you mentioned, people are robbed for their voice for democracy. One of the main components to democracy is a free and fair election, and unfortunately, Egypt and various other countries, whether they’re in the Global North or the Global South, create this faux democratic practice instead of allowing citizens to properly vote.
As you mentioned, Egyptian President Abdel Fatah al-Sissi won approval from
lawmakers to stay in office until 2030. This authoritarian grasp over the country obviously benefits him in the elections. Whether the officials rig it in his favor, or the citizens fear the outcomes of displeasing the everlasting leader, he will always win. The results, inevitably, were 531 to 22. The undemocratic practices in Egypt such as arresting opponents and removing online protestors unfortunately happen in other parts of the world as well: for example, Russia with rigging, and Nigeria with patron-client relations. The president, as you stated, controls the judicial system, legislative system, and the military forces as well. This phenomenon is similar to Iran in which the Supreme Leader (currently Khamenei) controls the entire state despite their dual and dueling relationships between the elected and non-elected institutions in the regime.
The denial of these basic electoral rights promotes the idea of this “pseudo-democracy” as you referred to it, or as I said a hybrid regime. You argued that gaining power through corruption undermines what democracy stands for, and I undoubtedly agree. Contaminating the electoral process goes against 4 basic characteristics of democracy: rights, rule of law, free and competitive elections, and the presence of a civil society.
Thank you! Yes, I totally agree with the points you made.
I really appreciate how the author was able to present the status quo of Egypt’s democratic elections. While reading the article, I was able to feel the fear of Egyptians on going against their leader, President Abdel Fatah al-Sissi. Hence, it is not surprising that Egypt is classified Not Free with the aggregate freedom score of 22 over 100 in the research conducted by the Freedom House. He has made his way to presidency by arresting and detaining oppositions after their announcement of candidacy which driven other candidates to withdraw from the election. Corrales and Penfold in the article, Manipulating Term Limits in Latin America have argued that countries with indefinite term limits are deleterious to democracy. Relatedly, the move of al-Sissi to extend term limits is an outright indicator of authoritarianism.
With the dilemma experienced by Egypt, it is really important to uphold the Gatekeepers of Democracy identified by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt in the book How Democracies Die. Individuals, courts, and institutional structures should unite to prevent President al-Sissi’s consolidation of power. This is definitely the challenge because Sissi has perfectly instigated fear among the voters. With the existing concept of pseudo-democracy in Egypt, votes casted became useless since it does not to truly play by the virtue of democracy. With the facts presented by the author, it can be said that almost all branches of Egypt’s government have been corrupted and do not function the way it is supposed to be. Instead of following the written rules of the constitutions, legislators themselves assist Sissi in amending it in a way that would benefit the present administration. Nevertheless, this model does not only show how corruption threatens democracy in elections but rather how it undermined democracy itself.