The overwhelming victory by Egyptian president-elect Abdel Fattah El Sisi over his sole opponent, Hamdeen Sabahi, came as no surprise, noted the columnist Abdullah bin Bejad Al Otaibi in the London-based daily Asharq Al Awsat.
As the preliminary results were announced, Egyptian cities and towns revelled in jubilation over the victory of a new president who, since last June’s second revolution, has proved his commitment to the road map for the future he had announced. Now all that remains is to hold parliamentary elections, a step that could have a significant impact on Egypt’s near future.
Comparisons with the last elections dominated the electoral scene in general, both in terms of the electoral campaigns and in the media coverage.
“But the comparison was misplaced,” the writer noted. “The differences between both processes were significant: the previous elections were conducted in a competitive atmosphere and in light of intense mobilisation on both sides, even in the second phases between Mohammed Morsi and Ahmed Shafiq.
“Political polarisation was at an all-time high and religion was exploited. The previous elections were contested for forgery and imprecise results.”
Mr El Sisi won the votes of 23.9 million Egyptians in comparison to Mr Morsi’s 13.2 million votes in 2012.
“This doesn’t mean Egypt’s suffering has ended or its issues have become any less pressing,” Al Otaibi wrote. “This is, however, Egypt’s first step towards finding and implementing solutions.”
In the meantime, a few observers remain sceptical of the military’s return to power in Egypt, based on a distorted understanding of what happened in 2011.
They believe it was the youth movement alone that succeeded in bringing down the Mubarak regime, but in truth, those movements, as strong as they were, would have been fruitless if it weren’t for the armed forces’ decision to side with them.
In the same vein, the columnist Jihad Al Khazen commented in the pan-Arab daily Al Hayat about media reports on the less than anticipated turnout during elections, which western media perceived as a reflection of the Egyptian population’s dissatisfaction with the contenders.
“There was no doubt in anyone’s mind in Egypt and all over the world that El Sisi would prevail,” the writer observed.
But one must admit that even though the Muslim Brotherhood’s popularity has suffered a serious setback following their failed one-year tenure in power, it continues to be larger than any other existing political party in Egypt. The Brotherhood boycotted the elections and this is a factor that must be taken into consideration when assessing the turnout.
“What matters now is that Egypt has a new president and on him hang the hopes of Egyptians for a future better than what they have experienced in the past three years. The Muslim Brotherhood failed in power at every level,” he added.
Difficult tasks await the president-elect. Reforms are of the essence at every level: from pressing economic and security issues to education to the redundant government bureaucracy that hasn’t changed for decades.
“The economy can’t be separated from security. Investments wouldn’t start flowing into Egypt lest investors ensure that they would be working in peace,” he noted.
It remains to be seen to what extent president El Sisi can thwart violence with non-violent means and prevent the global media’s pressures and criticism.
“In responding to viciousness, actions speak louder than words. The peaceful establishment of democratic rule in Egypt and the revival of the economy would be the best riposte to scepticism,” Al Khazen said.
But to what extent would Egypt be able to fulfil the western criteria for democracy at this time when the coming phase requires the new president to ensure the state and promote its standing? That was the question posed by the columnist Amina Abu Shihab in the Sharjah-based daily Al Khaleej.
“It is an issue that classifies the state and democracy in two separate, contrasting categories in light of the western interpretation of democracy,” she said.
In western terms, democracy is a tool of political pressure, used at the convenience of western powers, the writer opined.
“Why should the West be the judge of people’s political experiences, notwithstanding the particularities and specificities of different populations and regardless of their political circumstances and realistic priorities?” she asked.
rmakarem@thenational.ae
