A “unified parliamentary list” simply means a “specific list” of 120 representatives who will take their seats in parliament without the need for a single ballot if all the parties agree to participate in this farce. This is unheard of.
What is realistic and acceptable in what the president said about agreement among political parties is what I have repeatedly suggested in the past for the sake of public interest, despite my partisan bias. Namely, that it is necessary for the political elite to find common ground at least on which economic legislation to pass in the next parliament, irrespective of ideological differences. While I know it is difficult to reach such agreement, the anticipated outcome at least deserves the effort.
Some parties, whose leaders or grassroots were unable to convince the Egyptian street of their performance or sway them to share their opinions, still insist on a unified list to cover up their inability, even failure, to present a sophisticated model of political or social action.
Some of them use their party affiliation as a form of prestige, to be invited on talk shows: the president of this party said this, the president of this party did that, etc. But the statements such figures make over an entire year are laughable and insult the intelligence of the masses.
There are those who still preach to the simple folk about “the paradise of the left” but forget – or ignore – what happened to Egypt under this ideology in terms of loss of territories, waste of resources, imprisonment of the innocent, rule of fear, and abuses against the opposition.
While others want to repeat the model of Ahmed Ezz, not identically, but in a new version that is even more tacky, reckless and arrogant, while less shrewd and less influential. What is new here is that the new form has a dramatic sectarian flavour.
Most parties still do not respect the Egyptian voter. They do not comprehend that he is the true catalyst on the ground and without him – after God’s will – there would not have been 25 January 2011 or 30 June 2013. Why do they fear reaching out to voters and listening to their opinions, exploring their problems and ideas, and courting them and trying to convince them of the party’s platform and perspective? Why do some people condescend towards the simple folk, although they know that without them they would not have been able to overthrow the Muslim Brotherhood and their exclusionist practices?
Theoretically, the new constitution – even after amendments – gives parliament unprecedentedly broad powers to rule over the state’s public policies in terms of legislation, direction, oversight and correction. Also theoretically, the majority of such a parliament should be built on a mature and strong partisan foundation – made of two or three parties – that possess an overall vision to manage the state according to a prepared legislative agenda. This agenda would not only cover the next five years, but lay the groundwork for future parliamentary action along the same track.
An objective observer will find the reality of Egyptian parties overall — the level of their political maturity and how they have so far addressed chronic economic, social and political problems — not to be reassuring. And voters do not have confidence that these parties should unilaterally use this mandate.
The voters as well as the incumbent regime are also discovering day after day, by watching parties fail in even reaching consensus on a coalition or candidates, that the flawed electoral law – which will result in a frail parliament that does not disturb the executive branch – is the best option for this reality.
The writer is co-founder of Egypt’s Nour Party and serves as the party chairman’s assistant for media affairs.
Short link: