On Egypt's Election

Like a good American, I have been following Egypt and its parliamentary elections. There aren't any child-molesters or Mormons running this year. (Or at least we hope so). But there are some very "scary" tendencies within the electorate.

There are two Blocs within the electorate. There are the Islamists, represented by the Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) and the Nour Party, on part of the Salafi Muslims. According to leaked data, the parliamentary representation cast by these parties is close to 60%. The rest of the electorate has chosen to represent themselves with the "Egyptian Bloc," which is, according to our good friend Matt Bradley from the Wall Street Journal, " the largest list of liberal parties." Sure enough, they are expected to win 15% of the vote. Indeed the Islamists, as they are called, have a clear victory in Egypt.

But this does not please Mr. Bradley. Despite their " popular support," apparently, these Islamist parties are not proper for Egypt. His entire article - entitled "Egypt Secularists Face Hard Choices" - resonates with this sort of pro-Liberal bias that is just too American, mainly because the Liberal that is thought of in America is not the type of Liberal that Mr. Bradley is so fond of. Is it really a belief of American liberals to interfere with a sovereign nation's democratic practices? No. By Liberal, Mr. Bradley means to say secular. However as attractive as that word may seem, that word "secular" should not ring bells - no pun intended - with the real American left.

What if I told you that democracy is based on the ideal of consideration? Indeed, complying with Dahlian democracy, consideration is the most important thing in a democracy. It is how civil rights are met. It is a consideration of all people--that means, a real democracy must consider the majority and the minority. And the current system is doing just that. Indeed the Egyptian parliament is based on a mix of proportional (that is party based) election and individual elections, similar to that of the US, It does take into consideration the interests of everyone. So if the "conservative Nile Delta region, which is considered Salafi heartland," wants to vote for the Salafi party, let it. It is for the interest of the Society, the culture that is so present in that area. If the Cairo area wants to elect a "liberal" party...it has that right, as well.

But that doesn't mean the consideration for a minority must be neglected. It should not. But what is a minority. What is the threshold between an "individual" and a minority? Is there such a threshold? Indeed there must be. Does it make sense for 99% of a population to follow laws made, in part, becauseby the representative of the 1%. Sure, this may be an exaggeration, but it is not that great deal of an exaggeration when it comes to Egypt or at least Egypt's way of handling things. For two reasons:

1. Regions: Indeed there are pockets of representation that represent a certain person better than others. If representation is what they want, why mustn't these people move there? Wouldn't that, then, serve the leftist principle of communalism better? After all, in areas like Egypt or, specifically, the Nile region, where 2% of the population are "different," does that 2% really count as a minority, or at least one deserving a significantly unproportional amount of representation? Must one-person, one-vote really be compromised? Indeed the political system is good as it, Mr Bradley. Thank you.

2. Redistricting and Gerrymandering: Though thought of as a problem here in the United States, these practices might actually be very helpful in Egypt. They would drastically improve the representation of the "minorities" who may become majorities if placed into a correctly gerrymandered area.

Simply put, there is no reason why we must be afraid, scared of Egypt voting in Islamists. If that is what they want, so be it. If things don't go the way the people want, they'll change their government. WE should only be concerned if anything goes fundamentally wrong. If democracy is not practiced properly.

Indeed, if anything, the electoral policies in Egypt have only become more "transparent." "Mr. Ibrahim, the election chief" read out the results of the individual races, despite his earlier stance: "Last week, Mr. Ibrahim, the elections chief, told reporters that the results of the party voting would be released only after all voting closed,"  However, Mr. Ibrahim had neglected to "read the anticipated party-slate results, he said he had 'run out of gas.'" But the progress should not be under-estimated. Egypt can only move forward. But if the West were to interfere and somehow support the Liberals--that would be dangerous. It would derange the entire democratic process. If there no one supports them, they have no legitimacy. They won't be able to stand. This would force Islamist tensions - supported by public opinion - to take a violent turn, a definite turn for the worst. On such a stage as this, the two sides (the 98% and the 2%) have a stage upon which to do political contemplation. It seems as if I always end up closing this way, but indeed, the pen is stronger than the sword. And, if left alone, Egypt will epitomize this ideology, bringing it further than the United States herself.