One Step Forward, Two Steps Somewhere Else -- Egypt's Referendum

In a few ways the March 19 constitutional referendum in Egypt was a triumph.  However, it was ultimately not enough to foster a fully democratic state, and it may now set off a chain of events that will lead Egypt yet farther away from that end.  Nearly all elements of the referendum -- its drafting, its substantive content, its promotion, the process of the vote -- indicate the military committee's flimsy commitment to reform.  While the vote was historic, and there are several things to be happy about, the final product is not yet a democracy.  Sadly, it may be no more than a very well-dressed concession, which will alter the outward appearance of the government but leave all the vital parts of the ancien régime intact.

First, the good news.  The referendum passed in an orderly, fair vote, perhaps the cleanest and most credible of any in Egyptian history.  The reports on the conduct of polling (you can read a few here, here, and here) are pretty good; the vote was a dramatic improvement over recent elections in Egypt, which were spoiled by endemic violence, rigging, and extremely poor turnouts.  Some irregularities notwithstanding, the result of the vote is a fair expression of popular will, at least on the surface.

But like many previous so-called reforms in Egyptian politics, the devil is in the details.  The referendum was not rigged, it was not marred by widespread thuggery or vote-buying or corruption, and that is at least in part because there simply was not much at stake for the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces.  The reforms themselves pave the way for another corrupt and self-serving regime, which once in place will have far-reaching executive power and little reason to oblige the needs of ordinary Egyptians.  It still allows for a highly selective nomination process which will filter out most non-establishment candidates for president.  While the amended constitution leaves the door open to more meaningful changes, the short time frame for elections favors elements that have no interest in greater liberalization, namely the NDP, its cronies, and the Muslim Brotherhood (though the Brotherhood is undergoing a fracturing process at the moment that may change it significantly in the coming months).

I do not doubt that the referendum's approval is genuine and fair.  However, it is notable that in spite of the droves of people seen waiting in lines at polling stations, less than half of Egypt's eligible voters actually did cast a ballot, or 18 million out of a possible 45 million.  Many of those who did not vote may have been against the amendments, and presumably many of them at least felt somewhat ambivalent; but regardless of their feelings this indicates that support for the amendments is not as overwhelming as the 77.2% yes vote may indicate.

Support for the referendum notwithstanding, Egypt has moved one step farther toward a shift in its political system, albeit a smaller one than many pro-reform activists would like to see.  Pluralism is likely to increase in post-Mubarak Egypt, at least for a while.  However, the established order, including the enormous NDP political machine, still holds many of the cards in this system.  It appears that if change in Egypt is to occur at all, it will have to be incremental.  Reformers must now turn from the referendum to prepare for parliamentary elections in September, which will be the next opportunity to bring real change onto the table.  An opposition parliament would have the power to call for a new constitution, and would be able to select delegates to draft it.  However, the opposition needs to create a far-reaching political message and turn a leaderless popular movement of once politically apathetic youth into a unified front against the patronage networks of the NDP and its allies.

Though the new constitutional amendments are substantially disappointing, their passage does not spell the end for democracy in Egypt.  There was no question that the military, given the chance to dictate the pace and content of reform, would meet only the bare minimum of demands for change and seek to preserve its own privileged status.  Of course, the military's strategic calculus is more daunting when it is as effectively practiced as it was during the referendum process.  Supporters of democratization in Egypt must remain mindful of the fact that they will not be given anything by the transitional government.  Liberal reform is seldom handed down from entrenched autocrats -- it will more likely need to be seized.

Egypt's Second Big Day

It's Referendum Day in Egypt, and if this feels a little too soon to you, you are not alone.  The short period of time between the public proposal of Egypt's constitutional amendments and a nationwide referendum is causing a great deal of anxiety in Egypt and among observers abroad.  The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces has continued to forge ahead regardless, dropping subtle hints that they do not understand or care about the democratic process.  The most tone deaf of these signs is probably their request for a cease of all media discussion of the referendum for the past 48 hours.  I am not really sure where they got this idea, but it seems as if they are taking the "secret" part of secret ballot way too seriously.

I have already offered my take on the actual content of the amendments.  However, the amendments themselves are not the only test of Egypt's prospects for democratization.  The conduction of a poll presents several noteworthy problems.  There have been many votes in Egypt in the post-1952 era, none resembling an orderly exercise of popular will.  Elections are typically a chaotic affair, marked by widespread violence, fraud, and other kinds of foul play.  The past two presidential elections were especially ugly, with dozens of people killed in each one.

But there are several important reasons to believe that the March 19 referendum will go differently.  Not least among them is the fact that the referendum could be a win-win proposition for the military and established order, making foul play unnecessary for a favorable outcome.  In the end, a "yes" or "no" vote should not dramatically weaken the position of these elements.  The military almost certainly wants a yes vote, because it will lend them credibility while not threatening the fundamental structure of the state which gives them such privileged status.  However, a no vote could still work to their advantage.  If the amendments are rejected, the military might conclude that the constitution is fine the way it is.  Even if the public does not tolerate such an outcome, the transition remains in the hands of the military, and they can offer more or less significant reforms at their discretion.  Furthermore, debate over the reforms themselves causes division within the opposition, making the military relatively stronger and complicating efforts to mount pressure for a more serious commitment to democracy.

At the same time, the referendum contains some opportunities for the pro-reform camp.  While the passing of the referendum creates numerous dangers and offers little in the way of true change, it also does not doom the opposition.  Activist groups have proven their ability to mobilize masses of people and influence the military leadership, and it seems unlikely to me that this would become a non-factor if the referendum passed.  Differences of opinion and tactics may limit the opposition's effectiveness, but I doubt they will to a great enough extent to marginalize the protest movement altogether.

Ultimately, the outcome of the referendum process as whole -- more so than the vote alone -- is crucial to a democratic transformation in Egypt.  The poll's management so far has been decidedly undemocratic, as are the amendments under consideration.  Yet both are improvements over the past, and they do not eliminate the opportunity for meaningful change down the road.  Authoritarian elements are running out of moves in Egypt; trying to spoil this vote with the same kind of rigging and violence of past elections will not be accepted by the Egyptian people or the international community (of course, that does not mean they won't try).  I expect this poll to be controversial, though probably not as blatantly fraudulent as last fall's parliamentary elections.  In any case it will be dangerous indeed for the government to try to steal this vote.

While today's vote will most likely cloud Egypt's future even more, it may answer some important questions about the final intentions of the military (if they have those), the state of the opposition, and the prospects for democratization.  There will be no definitive answers, but the outcome of the referendum will likely set the course for events over the next few months.